Tributes to the Late Lord Shepherd

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the House will by now be aware of the sad news of the death last Thursday of one of our dearest and most familiar colleagues, Lord Shepherd. Malcolm Shepherd was an immensely respected and authoritative Member of this House whose political career reached an apex in his service as Leader of the House between 1974 and 1976. Those of your Lordships who, like me, have joined the House since that time will know that he continued to be a very shrewd contributor to many debates, whose interventions often appealed to common sense and political judgment.
	Malcolm's family background was deep rooted in politics. His father had been Government Chief Whip in this House in the 1940s. However, his own first career was not in politics but in business, in which he was extremely successful, including being the deputy chairman of the Sterling Group of Companies and the chairman of the National Bus Company. When he succeeded to his father's peerage in 1954, the House and the Labour Party were quick to see the contribution he could make. By 1960 he was the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip and when the Labour Party won the election of 1964, he followed his father as Government Chief Whip. Later, he was Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in that role he took a passionate interest in the affairs of Gibraltar, being instrumental in the introduction of a new constitution there in 1969.
	For many years, Malcolm was an assiduous member of a number of the committees of this House. He served on the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and Sub-Committees A and B of the European Communities Committee. As chairman of Sub-Committee B on Energy and Transport from 1987 to 1990, Lord Shepherd put his knowledge of both business and government to good use in the service of the House. He was also one of the early members of your Lordships' Committee on Delegated Powers, as it was then called, and in that capacity in 1993 he was instrumental behind the scenes in co-ordinating support for an amendment to the Railways Bill to defend the hybrid instrument procedure of this House, an amendment which I remember had the then government under some pressure for quite some time. At that time, such committee activity on Bills was not widespread, but Lord Shepherd was always an independent character.
	To me, his independent character and integrity shone through during the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999. From the beginning, Malcolm Shepherd was clear that he should not continue to sit as an hereditary Peer and he played a significant and graceful role during the many hours of debate on the Bill. He was a very dignified leader of the small band of Labour hereditary Peers at that time. I was very touched when I heard that he described the day that he was "reinstated" as a life Peer in his own right as the proudest of his life.
	As Lord Shepherd of Spalding, he remained an active Member of the House and only a fortnight ago he was here to vote on the Hunting Bill. His death has come very suddenly and is a shock to us all. I think I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we shall miss the twinkle in his eye whenever he spoke to us individually and the sound of his chuckle, which echoed quite loudly sometimes around the House. We shall miss the way he sprinkled kindness and support so generously on so many of us. I know that your Lordships will wish to join me in sending our deepest sympathy to his sons.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I rise from the Opposition Benches to join the noble Baroness in her tribute. The whole House was visibly shocked last Thursday when the Leader of the House announced that Lord Shepherd had died and that tributes would be paid today. I think that it was the right decision to delay tributes until this afternoon. Thursday would have been too quick to do justice to Lord Shepherd.
	It is one of the great traditions of this House that we reserve tributes for a limited number of selected Peers, but it is perhaps by appalling bad luck that we have had far too many over the course of the past few weeks. Lord Shepherd had a long and distinguished career in this House, after inheriting his title in 1954 at the age of 36. He was one of many Peers to remember active service in the Second World War--in North Africa, in Sicily and in Italy--and he managed an active business career as well as a political one. He was obviously an extremely competent businessman. He had an enviable career, including the chairmanship of the National Bus Company.
	I particularly want to refer to his time here in this House and to his political career. He was on the Front Bench from 1959 to 1976. He went from being a junior Whip to Leader of the House, including Chief Whip from 1964 to 1967; and that, it will be remembered, was a difficult time for Labour in this House. Labour Peers truly were a tiny minority against the Conservative Party. He was Chief Whip during the time of the House of Lords Bill, as it then was, in 1968, and Leader of the House from 1974 to 1976 at the time of a Labour minority government.
	Lord Shepherd was wily and cunning, but also wise. He was invariably helpful to me when I was Government Chief Whip and, later on in Opposition, as Leader. He was always keen to offer advice, particularly when asked, and never minded if that advice was not taken. Latterly, he kept his place below the Gangway and from there he made skilful and penetrating interjections at Question Time as well as during wider debates.
	Lord Shepherd was always respectful and widely respected. He was one of those among us who understood the House and its quirks. That experience and knowledge are now lost to all of us.
	Finally, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned Lord Shepherd's work on committees. I should like to refer to only one. He was a founder member of what is now the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which has made such a difference to the way in which legislation is taken through this House. From this side of the Chamber, we shall miss him, as I am sure will all noble Lords. We, too, express our condolences to his sons.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to associate these Benches with all that has been said about Lord Shepherd: shrewd, yes; respected, yes; authoritative, yes; and all carried off with a twinkling eye. I feel that we already miss him, although we have not yet lost his presence. Indeed, I believe that it will be a long time before that will happen.
	The noble Baroness the Leader of the House did not quite say that Lord Shepherd hailed from a Labour dynasty, but she drew attention to his very long association with the Labour Party and the distinguished contribution made by his father as one of the unsung heroes of the organisation upon which all parties rely. Reference was also made to his becoming the Government Chief Whip, but I think that I am right to say that he is the only Government Chief Whip of any party at any time who has then gone on to become the Leader of the House. As in many other ways, in that, too, Lord Shepherd was unique.
	I first came to know Lord Shepherd when he was a busy, well informed and persuasive Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Later, when I became Secretary of State for Transport, he became an obvious appointment, because of his business background, as chairman of the National Bus Company. We look back now on a long and distinguished career. Indeed, he was one of the relatively few survivors of the 100 or so men and women from both Houses who went into the Labour government of 1964.
	Lord Shepherd was a good servant of this House and a good servant of the country.

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, we have heard from previous speakers what a good man Lord Shepherd was, and his distinguished career has already been outlined. In so far as this House was concerned, he climbed the ladder of all the key positions in this House until reaching the leadership. This left him with a greater knowledge of the workings of the House than most of us will ever acquire.
	There is one episode in Lord Shepherd's semi-retirement about which I should like to speak. Fourteen years ago, I was appointed chairman of the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel, a hybrid measure with 1,457 petitions against it. Several very experienced Members of the House were appointed to the committee, but when I learned that Malcolm had agreed to serve, my heart rose. I fixed it so that he sat next to me and periodically, during the course of 35 sitting days held upstairs, compressed into two months, he would murmur, "Watch it, mate", when he perceived that I was heading into a situation which would result in some trouble. Thanks to him, I mostly managed to scramble clear.
	We were under instructions to complete the job quickly and did so by sitting for far longer hours than the conventional 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The pace told on us all, but in the last week, Malcolm contracted pneumonia and was bundled off into hospital. On the very last day, there was to be a Division which all but one of us deplored. Defying doctors' orders, he came to the House and voted. We managed to return him promptly to hospital, fortunately unharmed.
	Malcolm was an avuncular figure, the kind of uncle we should all like to have--wise, concerned, helpful and kindly. I learnt about him in the arduous conditions of that committee and I shall remember him with great affection and respect, as will so many noble Lords. Naturally, we extend our sympathy to his sons.

The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that I shall be allowed to say a few words because Malcolm was my Chief Whip when I was Leader of the House. I was an insecure figure; I belonged to an older generation. The then Prime Minister and later my great friend Harold Wilson told me that, "We cannot keep Eddie Shackleton waiting forever, can we?". That was not encouraging, but Malcolm supported me throughout. He was loyalty itself and he was a wonderful man.
	When people ask whether Malcolm was new Labour or old Labour, I respond simply by saying that Malcolm was real Labour, true Labour. That was Malcolm, a true Labour man.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on the Bishops' Benches, I welcome the opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the memory of Lord Shepherd. He gave long and distinguished service to this House, including service on its various committees, as we have been reminded today, as well as in the wider, public domain. His wisdom and integrity were hugely respected and, clearly, his presence will be greatly missed. Our prayers and condolences go to the members of his family.

Lord Carrington: My Lords, over a great many years, Lord Shepherd and I faced each other across our respective Dispatch Boxes and argued together. Some 25 years ago, this House was a very different place. The Chief Whip and the Leader of the House in a Labour government had a very difficult task; they were faced with a huge majority wholly opposed to almost everything that that government were doing. They needed a Leader who had tact, skill and firmness of purpose to manage the business of the House in those days--and Lord Shepherd did so excellently. He had all those qualities and he managed the House with great success.
	He was as respected and as popular on this side of the House as he was on the other. He was a courteous and modest man; he was fair and he was open. He became to me, as to many others, a firm and personal friend. I am saddened by his death.

Taiwan

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to improve relations with Taiwan.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, although we do not recognise Taiwan, we are keen to develop a mutually beneficial unofficial relationship. This covers economic and trade relations, inward investment, education, science and technology and culture. Taiwan is a target market for Trade Partners UK, and last year our exports grew by 17 per cent to more than £1 billion. A strong programme of exchanges is supported by unofficial ministerial visits, mainly in trade related areas. We shall continue to strengthen our unofficial relationship.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I welcome confirmation that the Government see Taiwan as a valuable trading and cultural partner and that they wish to see more Taiwanese investment in this country. However, does my noble friend appreciate that the present stand-off between the United States and the People's Republic of China is creating enormous instability and nervousness in the region, particularly for Taiwan, which has more than 250 Chinese missiles pointing at its coast from the mainland?
	Can my noble friend confirm that the Government see the modern Taiwan as a defender of human rights and democracy? Can she further confirm that the free will of 23 million Taiwanese will be taken into account in any deliberations about the future constitutional status of the country?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sensitivities that may be being experienced in the region as a result of the recent difficulties in relation to the US aeroplane. Although we recognise Taiwan's position, we also acknowledge the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. It is obviously of very great importance that people on both sides of the strait continue to look creatively for a solution to any difficulty they may be experiencing.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, can the Minister explain whether it is the Government's policy to support the American "twin track" approach; that is, on the one hand, to strengthen Taiwan's defences against violent assault and attack--which is, after all, the right of the Taiwanese people--and, on the other hand, to recognise the long-term validity of the One China policy and to contribute to links with China in the most positive way, despite the present stand-off which obviously threatens that approach?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that British policy in relation to Taiwan remains the same. As I said, we acknowledge the position in relation to China. We have demonstrated by the way in which we have reacted to Taiwan that we can have a very vigorous unofficial relationship founded on good trade relations, cultural links and other contacts. We shall certainly continue to pursue that relationship to the advantage, I hope, of both Taiwan and ourselves.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make it clear to the People's Republic of China that the One China policy, to which the international community contributes and subscribes, can only become a reality on the ground with the free will of the people of Taiwan, and that that is dependent on progress being made towards democratic and free institutions in Beijing itself? In view of that, will the Government offer a little more encouragement to Taiwan, given that the Taiwanese have recently, after 45 years, changed their government through the ballot box?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the unofficial relationship that we have with Taiwan has been, and is, a warm one. I am sure that that warmth will continue. We look to both sides to pursue a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question through negotiation. We attach great importance to the avoidance of conflict in the Taiwan Strait, which could be very destabilising for the whole region and beyond. We would view with extreme concern any recourse to military action. We shall continue to do all that we can to encourage both sides to arrive at a mutually consensual arrangement with which they are both satisfied.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, while I understand the obvious constraints on British policy towards Taiwan, would it not be a very helpful indication of our general sympathy and support if we were to back Taiwan's application to join the World Trade Organisation?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are aware that the Taiwanese would like to pursue that course. There does not appear to be any reason why Taiwan should not seek to join as a trading unit itself. It can do that separately and apart from being a part of China. That may be something that would be looked at favourably.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that patience and time are likely to offer the best resolution to this difficult historic problem? The democratisation of China and its opening up to the outside world are all very helpful in terms of making the One China policy a success, but does the Minister further agree that it is incumbent on both sides to avoid, as far as possible, creating more and more weapons of greater and greater sophistication, which can only add to the tension already present in the region?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. Her last comments are, of course, generally applicable. Internationally, we are all seeking a creative, forceful dialogue in an attempt to resolve those issues.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, in view of the fact that Taiwan now has a mature parliamentary democracy, will Great Britain support an application by Taiwan to join the Inter- Parliamentary Union?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks in relation to that issue. I shall write to him if my understanding of the position has changed. What the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said is right: we need dialogue on these issues, and patience and time may be our best friends.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am grateful for the replies that the Minister has so far given. However, perhaps I may return to the original Question: can the Minister elaborate in a little more detail on the Government's plans to improve relations?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, we have been taking every opportunity to improve trade relations. Taiwan was the UK's 30th largest export market world-wide last year, when our exports increased by 17 per cent to just over £1 billion. It is a target market for British trade internationally. Taiwan is now a major investor in the UK. Approximately 175 Taiwanese firms have a presence here, maintaining around 10,000 jobs. So far this year there have been two sponsored working level visits by Taiwanese specialists, focusing on transportation and information technology; and next month we will hold our annual trade policy consultation. We receive a large part of the student body from Taiwan. More than 12,000 Taiwanese are studying in the United Kingdom, which represents a quarter of the Taiwanese overseas students market. We are taking active steps to try to find mutual opportunities where we can work together effectively.

Holocaust Era Insurance Claims

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will conduct an inquiry into the resolution of Holocaust era insurance claims against United Kingdom companies.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government wholeheartedly support the principle of restitution, as was demonstrated by the London conference on nazi gold in 1997 and the establishment of the Enemy Property Compensation Scheme. We applaud the establishment, in 1998, of an International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims. However, it remains for individual insurance companies to decide whether formally to join the commission and to decide the extent of their involvement in its work.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I thank him especially for his recognition of the work of the international commission on insurance claims, commonly known as ICHEIC, which is headed by Larry Eagleberger. Is my noble friend aware that there are only two major insurance companies in the world with holocaust era claims against them that have not joined the commission? One is Munich Re, in Germany, which had nazi connections; the other, sadly, is the Prudential in this country. As the chairman of the Prudential has seen fit to write to me saying that he supports ICHEIC in its goals, the inference to be drawn from the Prudential not joining is that it has something to hide or does not wish for the transparency that is required of those who become members. Sadly, this has led to a threat from the US of a boycott. Saluting as I do the work of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell on the Enemy Property Compensation Panel, which he chairs, and the honourable transparency to which that has led, surely it is wrong for the Prudential at this stage to prefer to keep apart from the equivalent joint process in the insurance world. Please will Her Majesty's Government have an appropriate word in the ear of those concerned?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that any talk of a boycott of insurance companies would not be helpful. I repeat that a decision to join ICHEIC is for the insurance company itself to take. I understand, from a copy of a letter from the chairman of the Prudential to my noble friend Lord Janner, which he has been good enough to show me, that the Prudential believes that it co-operates fully with ICHEIC, both in dealing with claims that arrive from ICHEIC and in exchanging information with the commission. Although this is a decision for the Prudential, clearly the company will be influenced by its need to ensure that it maintains good relations with insurance commissioners in the different states in the US.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Janner for his kind references to the Enemy Property Compensation Panel, as I do for his many other kindnesses to me. Will my noble friend confirm that the dispute in this case appears to relate to whether those who seek to rectify an injustice should do so unilaterally, or whether it is better to do so in conjunction with others who share the same purpose? Does my noble friend agree that, where possible, it is better to do so in conjunction with others--first, because it helps to ensure transparency and accountability and, secondly, because they do good twice who encourage others to emulate them?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that co-operation in these matters and acting together are a good thing. The Prudential argues that it complies with all of the conditions of ICHEIC and that it co-operates with the commission in both directions. Whether to observe the formality of membership of ICHEIC must remain a matter for the Prudential.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that the question of whether to join ICHEIC is a decision for individual insurance companies. Would he care to comment on the behaviour of the Prudential and on whether it is compatible with the DTI document Business and Society: Developing Corporate Social Responsibility in the UK?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am being invited to go rather wide of the Question. Clearly, the DTI document referred to covers a much wider range of issues; we had better debate them on an occasion when those wider issues are before the House.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, is it not the case that the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, Dr Kim Howells, among his many other attributes, is the Minister for Corporate Social Responsibility? Will my noble friend the Minister go a little further than he has done and exercise the collective charm and influence of government on the decision--which, as he rightly says, is ultimately for the Prudential itself?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I can rival Kim Howells' charm and decisiveness. I believe that the directors of the Prudential Assurance Company will read this exchange and will take note of the views expressed; and they will take note of the Government's endorsement of the existence and aims of the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, if the Prudential is co-operating fully and agrees with the aims of ICHEIC, does it recognise the anger and irritation it is causing by not joining almost all other honourable companies in this process?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend almost invites me to put myself in the place of the Prudential Assurance Company, and I certainly cannot do that. I repeat: I believe that the company will pay attention to what has been said from all sides of the House.

Elderly Patients in Care Homes: NHS Treatment

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any evidence that some elderly patients in care homes are not getting free National Health Service treatment; and whether free National Health Service treatment for all remains government policy.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, GP services are free for registered patients in all settings, including residential and nursing homes. GPs sometimes contract with homes to provide additional services; for example, training for staff. That is different from individual direct patient services, for which GPs should not be charging their registered patients. We shall investigate any allegations of abuse within the system. In addition, the department has commissioned a survey to check whether appropriate medical services are being provided to care homes.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a report by the Association of Charity Officers recently revealed that thousands of old people in residential homes and nursing homes are being forced to pay for medical services which should be provided free by the National Health Service? I warmly welcome my noble friend's assurance that the department will investigate any evidence; but if the allegations are proven, will the Government act immediately? This is a total reversal of the principle of a free National Health Service. It is those who most need medical services who are affected. Will my noble friend ensure that there are proper administrative arrangements for old people in care homes to receive medical care?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I confirm again that, except for a very limited range of specific items, GPs may not charge NHS patients for medical services. That applies as much to individuals living in their own home as it does to individuals in care homes.
	I am aware of the report that my noble friend has brought to the attention of the House. I have arranged for officials in the department to meet the authors of that report very shortly to discuss its implications. I make it clear to the House that if general practitioners are in breach of their terms of service, we shall expect local health authorities to take action.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, bearing in mind the inadequate fees paid by social services departments and the increasing levels of regulation by the Government, is the Minister concerned at the large number of care homes that are having to close?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the position regarding care homes generally is that, although there have been a number of closures over the past few years, taking the country as a whole there are still a number of vacant places. As regards fees, we discuss these matters with the local authority associations. We have encouraged a much closer dialogue between local authorities and the owners of care homes. Notwithstanding those questions, the issue of whether GP services should be available to registered patients in care homes has to be answered in the affirmative.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister mentioned GP services, but is not one of the key questions also whether intermediate care is charged for in care homes, as well as in people's own homes? Can the noble Lord give the House a categorical assurance that no charges will be levied for intermediate care, whether in care homes or in people's own homes?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords; intermediate care is an NHS service.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, having been one myself, I well appreciate my noble friend's position as a departmental Minister. But is it not unjust, downright discriminatory and, thus, morally reprehensible that 15,000 severely disabled people in Leonard Cheshire homes are subjected to charging for essential services that would be free of charge if they were cared for elsewhere? Moreover, should not all of us in this House, not least those of us on these Benches, strongly insist that what is morally reprehensible ought not to be legally permissible?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's longstanding interest and concern in these areas. However, we have decided to make care provided by registered nurses free in nursing homes. That will remove the greatest anomaly in the current system of care funding in relation to the distinction between care homes where NHS services are provided free and nursing homes where, up until now, nursing services have had to be paid for either by the local authority or by the resident concerned. Taking that with the additional investment in intermediate care is, I believe, the right way to spend the extra resources that have been made available.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell us when we are likely to see some real interim care to a much larger extent as regards the framework for the elderly that was announced just a week or so ago? It has been made quite clear that the present crisis within the NHS is due to the fact that people cannot be moved from accident and emergency departments into other wards because of all the beds that are occupied by elderly people who are unable to get into care homes. Surely that problem would be solved by providing proper intermediate national health care. Instead of just producing a document, can the Minister tell us when we shall actually see some of these improvements happening?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the target that has been set is for 5,000 extra intermediate care and 1,700 supported intermediate care places to be available by 2004, which will benefit around 150,000 more older people each year. We are making progress towards that aim. One has to create the right infrastructure, but we have seen much enthusiasm and have received a great deal of support at local level for developing those plans.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when answering a supplementary question from one of his noble friends, the Minister mentioned nursing care. Is the noble Lord aware that there is a great deal of confusion in what I would describe as the care industry and the nursing home industry as regards exactly what the expression "nursing care" means? Can he tell the House whether the Government intend purely to pay for that care provided by registered state nurses or those under contract to the NHS--but none other--or whether there is some other way in which residents of these homes can receive the treatment that they require?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, residents of all homes, whether residential care homes or nursing homes, should be able to receive the care that they require. As far as concerns residential care homes, it is a responsibility of the NHS through GPs and community nursing services to provide such nursing care. As for nursing homes, much of that care is provided in the homes by registered nurses. The decision of the Government following the Royal Commission report is to ensure that the care provided by those registered nurses will be free.

Prostate Cancer

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their plans for the screening and treatment of prostate cancer.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are committed to introducing a screening programme if and when screening and treatment techniques are sufficiently well developed. We recently announced that, working with our partners, we shall be providing £6 million over the next five years to develop two centres of excellence for prostate cancer research, developing better screening and diagnostics for prostate cancer. I can today announce that the department has agreed to fund a large-scale randomised control trial of treatment for localised prostate cancer at a total cost of about £13 million.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, bearing in mind that 10,000 men a year die from this condition in Britain, which represents one of the highest mortality rates in Europe, it is satisfactory to note that the Government are now--after some delay--taking stronger measures, including the introduction of greater funding, to deal with the matter. Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the NHS will have adequate services to deal with the increased PSA testing that is now likely to be carried out? Further, can he indicate what is the delay between diagnosis and treatment, and tell us what measures are being taken to reduce that delay?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are aware of delays in referral from GPs to consultants. That is why the two-week-wait target has been set. That target was set for breast cancer for the year 1999, while the target for all other cancers was the end of the year 2000. We shall monitor the results of that process to ensure that those waiting times in relation to prostate cancer are radically reduced. I agree with the implication behind the Question; namely, that in many places people have had to wait far too long.
	As for the issue of PSA testing, we expect the health service to be able to respond to any additional demands that are made upon it in that respect. However, it is important for me to inform the House that we shall be launching what is called an "informed choice programme" to ensure that men who come forward and ask for a PSA test are absolutely clear of the consequences of such testing. Experience in the United States shows that whereas 80 per cent of people offered a PSA test without careful counselling elected to take the test, only 38 per cent opted to have such a test when they were given information on which to base their preferences. It is important that informed choice should be the basis upon which such decisions are made.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister have any figure available to him that demonstrates the level of inaccuracy of PSA testing, and the number of false results?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as far as I am aware, false positives as a result of PSA testing are as high as 50 per cent. That is the reason why a great deal of caution has been exercised about the extent to which screening and PSA testing should take place in this country. If, as a result of having a PSA test and a biopsy, a patient is diagnosed as having cancer, it is worth pointing out that there is no telling what the outcome of that cancer will be because it is known that half of men over the age of 80 have prostate cancer but that only one in 25 will die of it. That is why it is so important that there should be informed choice for individual men who decide to go down the testing route.

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for meeting me and my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester to discuss with Gordon Muir of the King's College and Lister Hospitals his findings in the Camberwell area; namely, that there is a significantly higher incidence of inoperable prostate cancer among men in the Afro-Caribbean community. As those findings have been borne out by United States statistics, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether that will be given due consideration in deciding the guidance and the priorities for screening?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to differences in the incidents of prostate cancer among different ethnic groups. That is certainly suggested by research in the United States. Along with my noble friend, I met Mr Muir who is a researcher in this area. We are extremely keen to pursue this important area of work. We have invited detailed proposals from researchers in both Bristol and London who are looking at the incidence and nature of prostate cancer in UK ethnic sub-groups. If we were able to fund such research, it would inform the development of policy in relation to screening, testing or treatment.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister recently announced a set of pilots for pre-retirement health checks. Will the PSA test be included in the pilots and should not the informed choice programme be included in the tests?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am certainly happy to consider that. However, it is important that we make sure that the informed choice programme is fully rooted in the National Health Service and is seen to be working effectively. While we would consider sympathetically screening in itself, we must have evidence that it will be effective. It is important that the informed choice programme is a component of any such programme.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, what is the average wait or delay between seeing one's GP and seeing a consultant?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the average time between seeing a GP and a consultant is about 13 weeks.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, bearing in mind that there is an equality issue here in that unequal treatment for cancers as between men and women has been suggested, what plans do the Government have for greater information to be given to men through all the various media on symptoms and when one needs to self-refer, as such information was given years ago, and continues to be given, to women?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the whole purpose of the informed choice programme is to make that kind of information available to men who approach their GP, ask about prostate cancer and ask for a PSA test. The more information we provide, the more likely an individual is to make an informed choice.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 pm my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on foot and mouth. It is likely that the Statement will be taken after the first group of amendments to the Elections Bill.

Elections Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Postponement of local government elections in England and Wales]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 3, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (2A),"

Baroness Hanham: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 7. As we all know, the date of the county council elections has been--or will be, if the Bill is accepted--moved from 3rd May to 7th June. Why was 7th June accepted as an appropriate date? Presumably it was hoped that foot and mouth disease, which is the unhappy reason for the introduction of the Bill, would be under control by that stage. In the middle of last week some epidemiologists sent some optimistic messages with regard to how soon foot and mouth would be brought under control. However, it is fair to say that since the end of last week and over the weekend there have been other extremely serious outbreaks in areas far from previous outbreaks. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that this grievous disease is not under control and cannot be said to be so.
	As I understand it, the purpose of the postponement is to enable people in affected areas of the countryside to take part in the democratic process through postal voting; to enable them to be canvassed where possible and to enable those who hope to stand as candidates to do so, particularly farmer candidates whose farms have been affected by foot and mouth disease.
	It becomes increasingly unlikely that the disease will be on the wane by 7th June. It therefore seems sensible--the amendments are designed to achieve this--to give the Government the opportunity to introduce an order to stagger the local elections if it is clear to any local authority that it is impossible for a fair and democratic process to take place in its locality. Amendment No. 7 gives details of how that process can be initiated and explains that such an order would be submitted to both Houses of Parliament for their approval. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: On Second Reading last week we on these Benches made clear our view of the seriousness of any postponement of the local elections. My noble friend Lord Greaves expressed our collective view well when he said that we gave two cheers rather than three to the Bill.
	The arguments were finely balanced, but certainly did not persuade us that the postponement should be for a period as long as one year. I acknowledge that the unwritten intention of the amendment may be to call the Government's bluff with regard to the range of elections that may take place on 7th June. As we said last week, we do not expect the Government Benches to acknowledge that this is a fig leaf for not having the general election on 3rd May. Perhaps I can tease the Conservatives a little by suggesting that the amendment is a fig leaf for them wanting to keep their heads in the sand and not face a general election for as long as they possibly can.
	Seriously, we need certainty in this situation. Last week we argued for fixed-term Parliaments on that basis. There was certainty for those elected to the counties in May 1997. On Thursday I and my noble friends described a number of the difficulties that would arise from an indefinite postponement, which I described as a dribbling away of democracy. Among those would be a series of resignations by individual councillors which might in some cases lead to changes of control almost by default and not by design of the electorate, which is where on the whole such decisions should emanate. We also mentioned the knock-on effects of postponing annual meetings which would arise if the amendment were accepted. We shall discuss that issue later. I refer to decisions on service delivery which are taken at the beginning of a new council.
	I also believe that there are inherent difficulties in the detail of the amendments which I shall mention now as we are expected to deal with all stages of the Bill today. Amendment No. 7 refers to the disease being brought "under control". Do we have appropriate or sufficient tests to determine that? The amendment further states,
	"restrictions have been lifted from most farms"
	--does that mean 51 per cent of farms?--and refers to the trend being "downward" and the spread of the disease being "reversed". I am not sure that I understand the distinction between those two conditions. The amendment also refers to the time between reporting the disease and slaughter of the affected animals. That may be intended to demonstrate control in dealing with the disease, but does it reflect the control of the disease itself as distinct from having better mechanisms to respond to it?
	Finally, whose judgment would apply? The Secretary of State would have to be satisfied, but then the matter would come to both Houses of Parliament. Under the amendment, an application for judicial review would be fairly likely and the courts would have to determine whether the tests were met.
	There is so much scope for uncertainty in the amendment that we cannot support it. We certainly could not support an indefinite postponement of the council elections.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I, too, oppose the amendments. If I needed anything to reaffirm my opposition to them, a headline in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph did so. It read, "'We need gas masks', say Americans". Such horror stories would continue ad infinitum if the amendment was carried, with disastrous effects on our tourism industry.
	The Prime Minister had to make a judgment, balancing the maintenance of the greatest possible normality, particularly for the tourism industry, with the establishment of certainty for local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has referred to some of the reasons for that and I am sure that other noble Lords more equipped than I will discuss the problems and complexities that a long delay would create for local authorities.
	Business and the City also need certainty to maintain stability and to plan ahead. The amendment would send a strong negative signal to business and the City.
	There are other reasons for opposing the amendment. It cannot possibly be right or democratic for the executive to have the power to call local elections when it suits them politically. That would be one consequence of the amendments. Unlike parliamentary elections, the date for local elections has always been laid down. It has been amended once or twice, but it has always been laid down in statute. I believe that the same should apply to parliamentary elections. I was sorry that I was not able to be here for Second Reading, but I have read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who referred to the Labour Party's policy in 1992. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that I retired in 1993 and the policy then somehow got lost. I firmly believe in having fixed-term Parliaments, just as we have fixed dates for local elections.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the longer the delay, the more resignations and deaths there would be, which, without by-elections, could mean an undemocratic change of power by default. That would not be acceptable to whichever party lost out. That problem could be overcome only by holding by-elections in particular areas, which would not be acceptable.
	That brings me to one issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, did not refer when she introduced the amendment. I assume that the reference in Amendment No. 7 to,
	"a particular local authority area",
	means that there could be elections in different areas at different times. That would be ludicrous. Arbitrary decisions would be made on which local authorities would hold elections. Who would take those decision? It would be up to the Home Secretary, on the advice of experts relating to small and specific areas of the country. That would be almost impossible to achieve.
	I assume that the order would be binding on the local authorities concerned in respect of date and procedure. Would those local authorities be consulted? Would there be discussions between the experts and the local authorities about what should happen? In some cases currently, the experts are saying that certain areas or footpaths should be open, but the local authorities have arbitrarily decided not to open them, without giving any explanation of their reasons for ignoring the scientific advice. There is a lot of confusion about that.
	It would also be confusing to tell a tourist from abroad that it was all right to go to Oxfordshire, but not to Bedfordshire, but maybe next month they could go to Dorset. That is nonsense.
	Finally, the amendments take no account of the public mood. That mood is shown not just by the opinion polls, which are no more than guides, but by the voices of the people who are closely involved. Various statements have been made in the past few days. Ben Gill, President of the National Farmers Union, has said:
	"Farmers will find 7th June more acceptable".
	The Conservative leader of Hampshire County Council said that he was "rather glad" at the decision. The chief of tourism in the South West, Malcolm Bell, welcomed the postponement until June and said that,
	"the open-ended postponement advocated by the Tories would be absolutely disastrous for the British Tourist Industry".
	Carole Hutchings of South Devon Tourist Association, who is a farmer and an owner of a tourist attraction--the two cannot necessarily be separated--said that she was glad of the deferment, but did not want it to go beyond that date.
	Even the Opposition are not as united on the issue as they seem. On Second Reading in the other place, Nicholas Winterton said that leaving the date open would be, "unconstitutional and most unsatisfactory", adding that,
	"the House has a duty and a responsibility to specify another date when they are to be held".--[Official Report, Commons, 4/4/01; col. 417.]
	No stronger case than that can be put.

Lord Renton: The noble Baroness has overlooked the difficulties that arise in the rural areas affected by foot and mouth. I fought and won 10 general elections in a large farming area, with 80 villages and hamlets and five towns. I considered it my duty to visit every one of those villages. Luckily, during those 34 years we did not have a foot and mouth outbreak. The Government were right to decide that the local elections should not take place on 3rd May because of the inaccessibility and confusion caused in rural areas by foot and mouth.
	Since the Government made that decision, foot and mouth has spread still further. There are now more than 1,000 farms in Great Britain affected by it. Nobody can say whether that number will increase further, but it looks as though it might. If it does--and even if it does not--the circumstances that caused the Government to decide to postpone the election from 3rd May will become increasingly important. As we approach 7th June, which is only two months away, the Government should consider the possibility of postponing the elections still further in the interests of democracy in rural areas. It would not be against the interests of democracy to do so. I therefore warmly support the amendment.

Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is a strong and skilled advocate, but he has dealt with only part of the issue. He has argued about the possibility of there being a case for a further postponement of elections. However, he has not mentioned that the amendment would give the Government the power to postpone elections by statutory instrument. That is a constitutional point of considerable importance.
	I appreciate that Governments always like the power to use statutory instruments because, as they put it, they confer flexibility. However, it is usually for precisely that reason that opposition parties of any political colour tend to look askance at taking major powers of constitutional importance to be exercised by statutory instrument.
	I am even more surprised to find a power of this kind being suggested not merely from the Opposition Benches but from the Opposition Benches in this House. I believe that it is a familiar point to all of us, and certainly to the Official Opposition, that the powers of this House to control statutory instruments--although now improved, thanks in part to the efforts of the Opposition and to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his Politeia lecture--are still very far from perfect.
	In major constitutional matters--the postponement of any election must be regarded as a major constitutional matter--this House has always been regarded as having the powers of a long-stop. That is not likely to be set aside. Therefore, to take a power to postpone elections by a procedure which this House is by no means perfectly equipped to check seems to be a constitutional precedent of a type which governments might attempt but on which they would probably be checked in this House if they did so. For such a power to be attempted by an opposition is a paradox of positively Gilbertian proportion. It really does take me aback.
	My point with regard to regulations concerns not only voting, to which I always return; it is also a matter of publicity. If one tries to explain regulations to members of the media, one sees the eyes glaze over before one has finished the first sentence. It is also a matter of parliamentary time. Time is an opposition weapon of by no means negligible significance. As soon as one gives to government a power to do things by regulation, one throws away the weapon of time.
	This amendment clearly comes from an Opposition who, whatever they may say in public, have far more confidence in the constitutional propriety of this Government than I would have expected. I hope that Ministers will not take offence if I say that I do not share that confidence. I would not trust myself with this power; and, if I would not trust myself with it, I hope that I can be forgiven for not trusting Ministers with it either.
	Precedents exist in relation to this matter, and some things, by convention, are never done by regulation: we do not make new criminal offences or impose new taxes by regulation. I suggest that altering the dates of elections by regulation should perhaps count as another. If anyone on the Opposition Benches or anywhere else in this House can think of a case where a power to postpone elections by regulation has been taken, I shall be very interested to hear it.

Lord Norton of Louth: I believe that it occurs under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Earl Russell: Can the noble Lord give me any further context for that? The point is one of some interest.

Lord Norton of Louth: I believe that under the 1983 Act, the Home Secretary can lay an order to postpone the date if he does so before 1st February in the year preceding the poll.

Earl Russell: Perhaps I may have the chance to reply to the noble Lord. All-party agreement is clearly assumed. However, if we look at occasions on which general or local elections have been postponed--the Parliament and Registration Act 1916, amended by the Parliament and Local Elections Act 1916, postponed local elections--the provision simply allowed a postponement for a fixed period of time. Primary legislation was required. The same was true of the 1940 Act which postponed the general election due in that year.
	I have no opinion on what the situation will be in a month's time. However, whatever it may be, it is important that it is resolved by all-party agreement. I believe that that is best achieved by requiring primary legislation, but time will not permit that unless there is all-party agreement. Therefore, if I am called back from marking exam scripts and must sit through the night in order to see through primary legislation to meet an emergency which we cannot now foresee, I shall have only myself to blame; I shall not blame Ministers.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I can well understand my noble friend Lady Hanham feeling slightly hurt and surprised at the ingratitude shown by the Government in not rushing to accept her rather generous amendment. I attribute to my noble friend the most kindly feelings. She sees a Prime Minister in an embarrassing and difficult position. He has taken full charge of a totally unpredictable situation--that is, a very nasty disease, the course of which no one can foretell.
	The Prime Minister and his Government took the serious step of postponing an election. At the time, one was conscious that they were treading most sensitive ground. Nevertheless, in the end they decided that, due to the plight of the countryside, it would be as well and fair to postpone the election. Such a decision was slightly embarrassing in the face of a good deal of stern opposition from supporters of their party who have very little knowledge and even less concern for what happens in the countryside.
	My noble friend's amendment offers--I am sure that she will not be dogmatic about the date--a little flexibility. If the disease were to continue to spread, the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, would be in a position to say that they were grateful for the flexibility and would not proceed with the election on the date early in June now chosen.
	What I am really asking the noble Lord on the Front Bench--it seems to be a question which is easier to ask than it is to answer--is: what will be the Government's position if the situation which caused them originally to make a serious decision does not go away but still endures? Will they then say that they were wrong to postpone the election and that they will not postpone it any longer? It seems rather foolish not to take advantage of the maybe mistaken generosity of my noble friend. As it is, surely the Government will find themselves in a most difficult position if this unpredictable disease is still flaying its horrible course through the countryside.
	So far as I know, no one is in a position to forecast with any certainty the course that the disease will take; nor is anyone able to say that he has any certainty as to the correct measures that should now be taken. We are facing an unknown situation and personally I believe that it demands a measure of flexibility. However, if the Government reject out of hand the amendment which the Opposition rather generously offered, I believe that they will have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to retaining the chosen date of 7th June for the elections that have now been postponed.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am very surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, suggest that it is an opposition's job to be generous to the government. An opposition's job is not to be generous to the government but to ensure that the legislation that a government introduce is proper, right and relevant to the circumstances that attain at a particular time.

Lord Renton: Would the noble Lord give way?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall just finish my point. For an opposition to give a government the flexibility that the amendment contains would in my view undermine and make a misnomer of the word, "opposition".

Lord Renton: Surely the duty of an opposition is to put forward views--that is in the interests of democracy and of the people of this country. It is not our duty to consider what would be favourable or unfavourable to the government.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is an opposition's duty to ensure that the government are not given powers that override the rights of the people. The rights of the people include being consulted in elections when they expected to be consulted, not when the government think that it is right to consult them.
	I was sorry that the date of the local elections was moved to 7th June; I think that that was entirely unnecessary. The Government have decided, for their own reasons, to delay the elections and they have quite properly brought a Bill before the House. It is perfectly proper for the Opposition to try to amend it but the way in which they are trying to do so would, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, give undue power to the government of the day and set a precedent that may be followed in future.
	I remember--it was, I believe, in 1985--when the House of Commons decided that it wanted to end the reign of the GLC a year before the proper time. This House said that that was not democratic and prevented it being done. The noble Earl was absolutely right to say that this House acts as a longstop.
	I shall obviously not oppose the Bill but the power that the Opposition have proposed is not right. They are failing in their duty to challenge what the Government are doing. I hope that the House will oppose the proposal.

Viscount Goschen: I have great sympathy with those who see the role of your Lordships' House as a constitutional backstop that ensures that the Government are not given excessive powers. I listened extremely carefully to the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who suggested that the House should not write the Government a blank cheque.
	Several issues need to be considered in this regard. First, we are effectively in uncharted territory in this context. We have had to take an extraordinary decision. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that we are discussing not the Prime Minister's decision but Parliament's decision about whether to make such a delay. Secondly--this point was forcefully put by my noble friend Lord Renton--we do not know what the circumstances will be with regard to the foot and mouth epidemic by June, July or any fixed date. We need to address a specific problem: what happens, as has already been said, if the disease has not been brought under control by 7th June? My noble friend on the Front Bench sought to address that problem and to assist this House and the Government with her proposal. I am sure that she would not say that the mechanism that she proposed for the House to discuss was perfect but it would at least take care of that eventuality. The Government have not yet dealt with that eventuality. They have said with great firmness that the local elections will be held on 7th June but they have not explained what their policy will be if the disease has not been brought under control by then.
	The Government have clearly explained their reasons for suggesting that Parliament should delay the local elections; first, to ensure that everyone is represented properly; and, secondly, to ensure that the feelings of those most affected by the disease are fully taken into account. We do not know whether those criteria will no longer apply one month after the original date that was set for the elections. The Government have to explain to the House today how they propose to cater for the situation that I described. What will they do if the disease has not been brought under control by that time? In that event, they will have clearly demonstrated that delaying for one month was a gesture. They must explain what will happen if the disease is not firmly under control by then.
	In the amendment the Opposition are attempting to write considerable safeguards into the Bill. By no means does it involve a blank cheque. We are discussing not the criteria for joining the euro zone but a much more tightly defined matter, which is much more suitable for objective examination. I welcome the efforts of my noble friend on the Front Bench. She attempted to deal with the eventuality that the disease has not been brought under control within a month.

Lord Rennard: I want to make a brief point about the amendment that has not yet been sufficiently addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, may care to discuss it in her winding up remarks. Would not the amendment prolong the elections rather than postpone them? Nominations for the elections have legally closed and almost all of the nominations that will be made for the elections, whenever they are held, have been made. Much of the printed material has been printed and much of it has been delivered. Canvassing has begun and canvassing will continue. The effect of an indefinite postponement of the elections in many areas simply means that the elections will continue for a far longer period than would otherwise have been the case. That would not be welcome in the affected areas.

Lord Monro of Langholm: I support the comments of those who have commended the amendment to the House, especially what was said by my noble friend Lord Renton. Like him, I have fought 10 or so elections. It is desperately important for candidates to meet the people. Years ago, one had perhaps 60 or 70 meetings in village halls over a period of three or four weeks but nowadays local government and parliamentary elections increasingly involve walkabouts. That means meeting the people in the streets and villages. However, that is exactly what we do not want to be happening if foot and mouth has not substantially diminished in a few weeks' time.
	The Government have argued, "We had a general election during the war". We did indeed have an election in July 1945, but at that time 10 years had elapsed since the previous general election and it was possible to move about the country freely. The only people at risk were many of us in the Far East or on the Continent. We had to vote by post. There was no reason to postpone having an election in July 1945, even if it produced an odd result.
	The Minister must explain how the situation has changed. The Prime Minister recently said that the situation would be all right on 7th June. Presumably, information from the Chief Veterinary Officer indicated that the number of cases would have dropped dramatically or ceased. Every day, there are still 24 or 34 cases in the United Kingdom.
	We should not be fooled by the thought that the Bill will affect only England. We know that the Bill is simply a cover-up and a reason for putting off the general election by a month. The general election will certainly affect Scotland. Foot and mouth cases are as virulent there as elsewhere and have been right from the start.
	The onus is on the Government to produce an argument as to why we should not have the flexibility to postpone the election--not indefinitely, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell indicated--for a maximum of 11 months, or perhaps only for a few months. It may be that by October of November, everything will be cleared up, as I hope to goodness it will. I believe that we are taking a very positive step to help the Government and the country to be in a better position to deal with local and general elections instead of going ahead in early June when we have not the slightest idea what the situation will be on the farms at that time.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Prime Minister announced that he intended to legislate in this way, to the majority of people it probably seemed on balance a sensible decision. But events have moved on. Indeed, they move on ahead of parliamentary debates. It is difficult to see now, for example, how what the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said about a local government election in June helping tourism could possibly be the case. Alas, it is increasingly clear that the situation is unlikely to be any better by the beginning of June. That is a growing fear among the increasing number of people close to this pestilence who are becoming overwhelmed and desperate. What is proposed will, I fear, turn out to be an empty gesture.
	My belief--it is, I am sure, what most Members of the Commmittee in their hearts are thinking--is that whether or not this Bill goes through there is a growing opinion that the general election should be postponed until all this horror is over. There will be very strong opinion against a general election while it continues. That is what I mean by an empty gesture. I can understand why it was made but I believe that it will turn out not to be very helpful.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may respond by saying that the view I expressed is not my view. It is the view of the chief of tourism, for example, in the South West. Devon is extremely badly affected. He welcomed a postponement until June but viewed an open-ended postponement advocated by the Tories as absolutely disastrous for the British tourist industry. That comes from someone who is involved with the matter from day to day. His view is that it is not an empty gesture.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Tourists will not be thinking about whether they happen to be here when there is an election. They are thinking about what restrictions may be in place because of foot and mouth disease. The noble Baroness may not be in direct contact with the people most deeply affected by this legislation. However, if she reads the newspapers she will see that it will become increasingly difficult to sustain what we should all like to sustain; namely, that as much of the country as possible should be open to tourists. It is not easy. At the moment there are parts of the country--I live in one of them--where it is possible for tourists to go. But they cannot just go anywhere. It is becoming increasingly difficult. Quite honestly, I do not believe that that argument is going to hold up for very much longer. I hate to say it, but I believe that Members of the Committee opposite should realise that.

Lord Norton of Louth: I had not intended to speak on this set of amendments which is why I have been busy writing on the back of someone else's envelopes. However, there are one or two points that I should briefly like to make.
	I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that this House has a role as a constitutional long-stop. I believe also that this House, as a House, has another very important role; namely, to force government to justify what they are doing. That is particularly important when there has been very little time for debate in the other place. It is therefore quite legitimate that amendments should be tabled to force the Government to come forward and justify the specific provisions of the Bill. We have had justifications for the Bill but there is a need for somewhat greater clarity.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the point about setting precedents, particularly if we provided the power to do something by order. As I mentioned, there is a power for that already in statute. I made that point not in order to justify the power but merely to establish that it existed. I have my own doubts about whether we should have in law that particular provision.
	We are in uncharted territory as regards postponing elections for any specific period in peace time. Therefore, it requires very serious reflection and justification. We are perfectly entitled to probe the Government in this way with this type of amendment.
	The amendment forces the Government to clarify precisely the justification for the measure. One argument--I believe a necessary argument--for postponing elections is the practical argument; that is, that it is difficult to hold elections when people are engaged in fighting the crisis of foot and mouth. It takes them away, and it makes campaigning somewhat difficult, as we have heard.
	The problem is sticking with a precise date when we may still face a crisis. Therefore, we are left with the justification being solely one of symbolism. That is a somewhat dangerous basis on which to delay an election. I accept that we need a limit. I do not believe that it can be an open-ended commitment. The amendment before us is not open-ended. But we need to consider very carefully what to do if the crisis is still with us on 3rd May. What will have been the point of having the delay if the problems still exist?
	I realise that the question is extraordinarily difficult. We are engaged in a balancing act. Getting the balance right may be difficult. That is all the more reason why we should subject this measure to very detailed scrutiny.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Perhaps I may declare an interest as an elected member of Suffolk County Council. It certainly seems to me that there is every difference in the world between the Prime Minister choosing not to exercise his right to call an election when he sees fit and the decision to cancel elections which have been fixed for four years.
	It seems that we are in something of a bind. We all tend to agree with the proposition that the county elections should be postponed, but we agree for different reasons. That causes some difficulty in deciding how we should move forward from here. If the reason for postponing county elections were the practical difficulties of campaigning in rural areas--as a rural councillor I have some experience, although nothing like as long as other Members of the Committee who have spoken--then those practical difficulties have to be put into the context of the 24 million people who have the right to vote in those elections.
	But the Government never said that they were making the decision for practical reasons. They have always said that it is due to that most ephemeral thing--public mood. We can all support that but it is very difficult to measure it and to think about it in anything other than a heartfelt way; and so we have this difficulty about where we go next and how we move on.
	In those terms, a proposition that says that we can indefinitely postpone elections, or postpone them for a year, has huge practical implications. I shall not take up the time of the Committee because we rehearsed those very well last week on Second Reading. But as a county councillor and someone who has been leader of a county council, I am aware of the immense practical difficulties in trying to run a council on a month-by-month basis. Not least is the great difficulty in relation to the 25 per cent of councillors who do not intend to stand again in May. They will gradually either drift off and not turn up to meetings or, quite possibly, hand in their resignations and then there are no provisions for by-elections. That will leave areas unrepresented, councils changing hands, and so on.
	We must find a mechanism to weigh up the difficulties which will exist for some people in casting a vote in county elections and the difficulties which will be caused for county councils. Let us remember that this is about the provision of services such as firefighting, libraries, planning, housing, schools, and all those things which local authorities do. It is important that we find a way to balance the two issues. For that reason, we shall oppose the amendments.

Lord Boardman: The debate has centred on the consequences of postponement. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the amendment was favourable to the Opposition, and that it is unusual for the Opposition to table an amendment which is favourable to the Government. He left it somewhat undecided as to which side it would favour. I have no idea--

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. It was not me who said that it was favourable to the Government, but his noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil.

Lord Boardman: I happily accept what the noble Lord says. My point is brief. I support the many arguments from this side of the House which have been far more ably put. I refer to the consequences on those mainly affected by foot and mouth disease; that is, the farming community and all whose future depends upon it.
	I must declare an interest. I am a farmer who at present, thank God, is not affected by foot and mouth. The feeling in the farming community is one of fear and fright. There have been many losses. Sheep cannot be moved from one place to another. The farmers wish this situation to end. They do not mind which way this will go, whether it is one date or another. They say, "Let us see that this has ended, and do not let people traipse round electioneering and all the other things which go with that while we have this risk hanging over our heads".
	Insofar as it is right to postpone the election because of damage to the farming community, it should be postponed to a time when such dangers do not exist. To predict that the farming community and all whose future depends on it will be more vulnerable in June than in May is speculation, but there are many who believe that. I believe that the date should be left open. If, indeed, the date in June, which is in the Bill, is found to be undesirable, with the same risks involved as were thought by the Government that there would be in May, it should be postponed. I should be very sorry on behalf of the farming community if we said, "No, come what may it will be that date and if it is much worse on 7th June than it was on 3rd May or it is today, that is just too bad for you". Our duty to the farming community is to give the opportunity for a postponement as proposed in the amendments.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The debate on the first group of amendments has been wide-ranging. It comes to the core issue which separates the two main parties over the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, ably expressed the case from her perspective. She was joined by other noble Lords opposite in setting out a case as to why 7th June should not be set in stone as a date on which the local elections should be held and from which they should be deferred. I shall simply put the case for the Government and explain why we take a contrary view.
	We believe that there are a number of reasons why it is not a good idea to leave the date uncertain. I referred to such reasons at Second Reading but I believe that it is worth rehearsing them again. Briefly, there are three reasons. Perhaps I may begin by reminding your Lordships that we consider that from a purely practical point of view there was no reason why the local elections could not go ahead on schedule. Roads are open, with only a tiny number of exceptions, as are schools, libraries and many other public buildings, certainly those in which elections take place. We do not believe that that position will change in the next couple of months.
	Your Lordships may want to contemplate the interpretation which would be placed on the decision potentially to delay indefinitely the local elections by those who may be considering visiting the United Kingdom from abroad or, indeed, by our home-grown tourist industry. It is in the interests of every citizen, town and country dweller alike, not least those farmers who have a diversified base to their business, for confidence in tourism to be restored as quickly as possible. Like my noble friend Lady Gould, I feel that it is worth reminding ourselves of the words of Malcolm Bell of the south-west tourism authority, which were quoted at Second Reading. When the announcement was made of the deferral to 7th June, he stated:
	"This is a positive announcement. There's confusion at the moment about whether or not the country is open. Delaying the election until June sends out a clear message that, before the summer holidays begin, Britain is back to normal".
	How would he and his colleagues in the tourism industry feel if the amendments were passed? I believe that he would argue that the whole matter would again be thrown into doubt. The fact that the amendments would allow the local elections to take place on different dates in different counties is particularly unfortunate. Let us imagine the message that that would send out. As my noble friend Lady Gould said, there would be different messages in different places, such as, "You can go to Dorset but Wiltshire is still closed. Somerset might open next month". That sort of approach is really rather barmy.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I thank the Minister for giving way. I believe he stated just now something about Britain being back to normal on 7th June. Is he saying that come the appropriate date beforehand, the Government will behave as if Britain were back to normal by 7th June, and that they will completely disregard the circumstances? Unless he is saying that, what he says does not make any sense.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I quoted the words of Malcolm Bell from the south-west tourist authority. The message that he was trying to make clear was that Britain was back to normal as regards tourists coming here, and for the purposes of being a tourist in the UK. That was the point which he was trying to get across, and which we need to echo, not least for the benefit of our tourism industry. We need to stress that people can feel free to come to our country and visit the many attractions which are completely unaffected by the outbreak of foot and mouth. We need to do all we can to restore confidence.
	We must also take into account the position of councillors who intend to stand down at the next election. That point was ably made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The other point which she made about the impact on individual local authorities, were there to be perpetual untimed delays is also important. It would be unreasonable to expect those who are prepared to accept a short delay to continue putting off indefinitely ceasing to be a councillor. The points about councillors resigning and county councils, in particular, becoming more uncertain about where the balance of control lies, are also important.
	One point which perhaps has not been dwelt on but is nonetheless important is what would happen to the overall balance of control of, for instance, the Local Government Association were there to be an indefinite delay or, perhaps, a staggering of elections, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham suggested. A councillor may resign his office at any time, and the Government are grateful that most councillors will probably accept the position of a short extension--as envisaged in the Bill--to their term of office. But it would be unfair to expect them to carry on in an open-ended way with the perpetual deferral of local elections.
	Whether by death or resignations, vacancies will occur. In certain cases the pattern of such vacancies could affect political control. It simply would not be right for the political make-up of councils to be at the vagaries of chance, with local people having no idea when they can restore the council which they had chosen or be given the opportunity to choose another type of political control for their local authorities.
	All the points I have set out illustrate the importance of having certainty on the issue of when local elections should be held. I suggest that amendments which provide for the elections to be postponed until specific conditions in relation to controlling and eradicating foot and mouth disease are met on an area-by-area basis propose a recipe for chaos. That would be the case even if the criteria for determining when the disease is under control were truly objective, which I believe is seriously under doubt and question.
	If these amendments were passed, Parliament on a regular basis would needlessly have to give further attention to when a local election could take place in a particular given and specific locality. I am loath to disturb the positive and generally constructive attitude that has prevailed during our deliberations on the Bill, and I am not seeking to make a partisan point, but I cannot help speculating what the reaction would have been if the tables had been turned. I am sure that if the Government had put forward a Bill which left the election date uncertain, we would have been accused of taking too great powers and that we would have attracted Opposition amendments to insert a fixed date.
	I also suspect that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would have been right to press his constitutional argument because it is an important point. I suspect that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which in general has given the Bill in its current form a clean bill of health, might well have had something to say about a power to set election dates by order. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I believe that his interpretation of the legislation is right and that, in a sense, the party opposite is being consistent with its 1983 legislation. However, I worry about such order-making powers.
	The Government believe that it is possible to hold elections now, but, on balance, decided to defer them for a short while. There is no good reason to leave it open to a new date. We believe that the elections should be held on 7th June. Therefore, I cannot invite the Committee to support the amendments and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will withdraw them.

Lord Norton of Louth: Before the noble Lord sits down, I heard what he said in response to the amendment. It was perfectly justified and he described where he saw the amendment as flawed. However, he did not develop the other side of his argument, which was to justify the existing provisions. He mentioned it briefly at the end in terms of balance, but I remain unclear where the priority lies as regards the principal case for 7th June.
	The noble Lord made the case that it was practically possible to proceed with an election on election day, but the argument advanced by the Home Secretary in another place was the practical one as regards preventing people from devoting themselves to local elections because they are busy fighting the crisis of foot and mouth. If that situation pertains on 7th June, I am not clear what the justification is for sticking with that date.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The important point is that the legislation seeks to create certainty. As I have argued, it creates that certainty and people know where they are. We have a fixed date and we can have an election contest. The Government took the balanced view that 7th June was about right and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made the point during his contribution in another place that having been given additional time and leadership locally and nationally, we hope that by then progress will have been made to ensure that all the mechanisms are in place to defeat the disease.
	Those are the reasons and the arguments before us and the Government must reach a balanced view. That is so particularly given the serious nature of the decision to postpone the elections for a period. All those issues hold together.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may press the noble Lord on the point of 7th June. Is he saying that come what may an election will be held on 7th June or, alternatively, that the Government are satisfied that by 7th June all will be back to normal in the countryside? If they are, I believe that the Minister is obliged to produce some evidence.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall deal with the last point first. I did not say that everything in the countryside would be back to normal. I made the point, which I repeated, that it was argued by the tourist industry that it was important to establish an aura of normality so that people could have greater confidence in coming to this country from abroad. That is important for the confidence of the tourism industry.
	We all hope that the foot and mouth disease will be well on the way to eradication by 7th June, but we cannot be absolutely certain of that. It would be foolish to speculate on that point. However, we are trying to put in place certainty as regards this set of local elections and we have established a date.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry to bother the Minister again, but he has not answered the first part of my question. Are the Government of a firm state of mind that come what may there will be an election on 7th June?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that I had made it clear that we expect the local elections to be on 7th June. That is an important point. We want to provide certainty so that the elections can take place. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made the point that the elections are taking place in the sense of campaigning activity on the ground. We want to be certain and have a crystal clear local election date so that the uncertainty about them and the fate of each county and each unitary authority can be properly determined.

Baroness Hanham: I am delighted that our amendment sparked such a comprehensive debate on the provisions of the Bill. I would have been even more delighted had Members of the Committee addressed themselves more precisely to the amendment which I moved.
	It was most specific. It was to enable particular areas to have the local election date extended. If a certain situation pertained, those areas could in the event be the whole area covered by a county council election. My amendment opens up the possibility that for a number of reasons it may not be possible to hold elections in every area on 7th June.
	I understand that the decision to move the elections to 7th June was taken during a short space of time. It was also taken because of the public-mood music--and perfectly understandable that was. But it cannot have been taken just because of anxieties about the public mood; it must have been taken in the light of the practicalities of running an election--any election, local or general--while the country is under siege. It is under siege from the dire disease of foot and mouth and because some people in the countryside are lamentably affected by what is happening. The practicalities of running elections under such circumstances must surely have weighed with the Prime Minister between the time he had made his visit to the field and his announcement of their delay.
	We are in a constitutional quagmire as regards the whole Bill and the situation which exists. I want to make it clear at the outset that no one on these Benches would have wanted the situation to happen. But as it has, and as we have had to move into a constitutional position that is almost unheard of, we must do so in a way that is sensible and sound and provides flexibility within the Government's proposals. We say that, despite what the Government and all of us hope, the situation on 7th June may be no better than it is on 3rd May. As I said in my opening remarks, that is increasingly appearing to be the case. Contrary to expectations, the disease is not diminishing or going away. Over the weekend new areas have opened up, totally unexpectedly, and the situation is moving towards that of last week.
	We say to the Government--this is perhaps not a matter for the Opposition but we make this offer--that we do not want to have another debate like this to postpone for a little longer a local election in a specific area. The amendment gives the option of an extension to May of next year as the absolute limit of what would be allowed, but it also gives the Government the option to bring before this House a proposal that one county, if that is what is required, will be unable to hold the elections, for all the reasons with which we are familiar. I have little doubt that this House would view that with a great deal of sympathy.
	It is for that reason that I table this amendment. We heard at Second Reading--there has been much coverage in the press--about the problems of tourism. We understand the economic spin-off into the tourist industry from foot and mouth disease. A great deal of anxiety is already being generated among those who intend to come to this country but are concerned about what they may find when they get here. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that some Americans wondered whether they should bring their gas masks. It will be very difficult now to dent that particular perception.
	It is also quite difficult to say that every area of the country will be open; it is not at the moment, and from time to time areas will be closed as the disease spreads. It may be a little time before one is able to say that England and Wales are open to tourists.
	I am concerned that in this Bill we are not talking about local elections but the general election. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, here we are demonstrating the fig leaf of county council elections but, while we do that, we must make whatever efforts we can to ensure that the clauses in the Bill are suitable.
	However, having listened with care--I appreciate that the Government will not give way on this particular matter--it is important in terms of timescale that the Bill is ultimately passed. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement on the foot and mouth outbreak.
	"As I have done on seven previous occasions over the past weeks, I wish to update the House before the Easter Recess on the latest position on the disease, set out the measures that the Government are taking and give honourable and right honourable Members the opportunity to raise issues with me.
	"As of 7 p.m. yesterday, Sunday 8th April, there had been 1,134 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease. As at 2 p.m. today I had been informed of a further 10 cases. The number of animals authorised for slaughter--as of 7 p.m. yesterday--was 1,366,000, of which 888,000 had been slaughtered and 478,000 awaited slaughter. Around 329,000 animals remained to be disposed of. This is out of a total UK cattle, sheep and pig population of over 55 million, and against a figure of some half a million animals which would go for slaughter in a normal trading week.
	"It is still too early to predict the future course of the epidemic. The epidemiologists are constantly updating their data as the outbreak progresses but they still cannot say with any certainty how long it will continue. There are some encouraging signs, but this is an exceptionally serious outbreak with a long phase-out period and we cannot afford a moment's complacency.
	"There is considerable agreement among the four groups modelling the epidemic. In particular, all have concluded that the two key interventions in tackling the disease are: first, and the highest priority, to cull all animals susceptible to the disease (principally cattle, sheep and pigs) on infected farm holdings within 24 hours; secondly, to cull susceptible animals in neighbouring farms which share a boundary--the so-called contiguous cull--within 48 hours.
	"We appreciate that the latter is very difficult for farmers to accept but it is vital for the overall success of our disease control policy that all potentially infected animals are culled. I urge farmers, in the strongest terms, to co-operate with us in seeing this through. Expert advice is that these premises will have been exposed to infection and need to be dealt with quickly.
	"I have written to all livestock farmers to make three key points. I have set out advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer about on-farm biosecurity. I have urged co-operation with the necessary culling of animals on neighbouring premises to infected holdings, and I have appealed to farmers not to jeopardise their own disease status, and that of other farmers, by moving animals around without a licence. Some of the isolated cases that have appeared in recent days and weeks appear to be directly attributed to farm-to-farm transmission from infected to clean areas. That point was made very forcefully to myself and the Prime Minister at our meeting with the NFU this morning and we share its concerns.
	"Across the country the 24-hour report-to-slaughter target is being met in nearly 80 per cent of cases. Where cases are not completed within 24 hours, they are being dealt with shortly afterwards. The 48-hour target for contiguous premises is more difficult to meet because of sheer weight of numbers, but progress is encouraging, with some areas achieving around 70 per cent within deadline. It is particularly important that we hit this target in any new outbreaks away from the heavily infected areas to prevent further spread, and resources are being concentrated to that end.
	"In support of this strategy, we have committed more and more resources to ensure that any possible blockages are removed. We have increased the number of vets on the ground very significantly to 1,522, with more being recruited. We are employing over 650 people as temporary animal health officers to supplement the 200 regular officers in the State Veterinary Service. We have appointed 11 directors of operations in the most affected areas. The Army is deployed in all the key areas, with 1,842 troops committed to this outbreak, and I am grateful for the excellent support provided by the Army and the MoD.
	"We have taken a number of other practical steps to eliminate delay. We have introduced a generous standard tariff to speed up the valuation of the animals, while at the same time safeguarding farmers' rights. We have reduced the turn-round times for vets visiting farms wherever this is possible, for instance by altering the reporting procedure for new cases.
	"We are very aware of the financial difficulties that many farmers face at this difficult time and have addressed this in four ways. First, compensation for slaughtered animals is currently estimated to reach over £247 million and is still rising. Secondly, we are paying £156 million in optional agrimonetary compensation to livestock farmers. Payments begin this week. This package is worth some £2,750 to the average dairy farmer, £650 to sheep farmers, £650 to suckler cow premium claimants and £450 to beef special premium claimants. Thirdly, we have introduced the livestock welfare disposal scheme as a last resort for livestock farmers whose animals face welfare difficulties as a result of FMD-related movement restrictions. The tariffs for the animals slaughtered under the scheme are generous. The estimated value of this optional scheme depends on take-up, but it is likely to be in excess of £200 million.
	"Finally, we have ensured that where animals slaughtered are the subject of a current subsidy claim subsidy entitlement will be preserved as a result of the application of EU rules on force majeure. Overall, we have committed over half a billion pounds to farmers so far in the course of this outbreak.
	"Vaccination remains an option, but it is not an easy option. There are no easy options. Members are aware of the arguments for and against vaccination. We are prepared to vaccinate if necessary. We have obtained the approval of the EU Standing Veterinary Committee for vaccination in the UK under certain circumstances. But it would be a major step to take with significant consequences. We are constantly reviewing the position and will continue to do so.
	"Many farmers are currently keeping cattle indoors, and this is helping to minimise the risk of spread of infection.
	"We hope that soon it may be possible to release some areas from restrictions, either completely or partially. There are two aspects to this: first, we will be looking at whether we can safely reduce the size of one or two areas that currently extend beyond a 10 kilometre radius; and, secondly, once all the necessary veterinary inspections and blood testing have been completed we will be looking to lift one or two infected areas completely where there have been no new cases for 30 days. I hope that it will be possible to start making progress on both of these actions in the next week or two. But again, disease control must remain the priority.
	"I and my ministerial colleagues in many other departments are doing all we can to promote the message that the countryside is not closed. More and more properties and visitor attractions are opening again and being publicised. We hope that over the Easter period the visitors will return. We have provided updated advice to zoo owners and to Royal Parks which will help them to make decisions on whether to re-open.
	"My right honourable friend the Minister of State is today participating in the Informal Council of EU Agriculture Ministers on my behalf in northern Sweden. She will be updating colleagues on the progress of the outbreak here. We are continuing to work very closely with our EU colleagues, who remain supportive of the efforts we are taking to bring the outbreak to an end.
	"We will continue to channel all our efforts into ensuring that our targets of 24 hours from report to slaughter and 48 hours to culling neighbouring farms are met. With the continued support from members of this House, from the farming organisations and many others, together we can succeed in our aim of eradicating this disease."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier today and for bringing us up to date on the issue before the Recess.
	Your Lordships will be aware from the Statement that these figures are even worse than the backlog figures I recorded last week in our Wednesday debate. While we welcome the EU's appraisal and approval for the possible future use of vaccination and the Government's moves with regard to financial help for farmers, there are still matters of concern.
	Perhaps I may again stress our thanks and appreciation to those working in the field to try to ease this terrible situation. The Minister particularly mentioned the Army. I remind the House that in our debate on this matter on 8th March I asked for the Army to be called in.
	Everyone hopes that the crisis will be brought under control. The tributes that I have paid reflect the feeling and understanding within the House of the devastation caused not only to families immediately affected in farming but to those in rural businesses and tourism.
	As I said earlier, these figures are horrendous. The first figure we had for animals awaiting slaughter was 440,000. Today's figure has increased to 478,000. There is also an increase in the figure of animal disposals from 266,000 to 329,000. Why has the system of reporting changed? How can we be kept up to date during the Recess if those figures are no longer available?
	The Statement recorded the increased number of vets and of Army personnel. How many slaughtermen are being used? Are there sufficient slaughtermen to tackle the dreadful backlog?
	The Minister touched on zoos. In our previous debate zoos were talked about at greater length. The Statement referred to helping them with their own decisions. We debated the whole question of animal welfare and whether vaccination within zoos might be considered. It is a very difficult problem, but perhaps the Minister will report to us again on it.
	Another issue raised was the enormous problem of getting fodder to animals on farms where they are stuck and cannot be moved. The situation is dire. What one sees as one drives through the country is appalling. Have the Government considered airlifting to farms any of that food rather than transporting it by lorry? I mention that issue because this weekend there was an outbreak of the disease in Jedburgh. One of my northern colleagues suggested that there was a lorry taking animal feed from Carlisle to Jedburgh and that it could have been the cause of the outbreak. If that is so, it has huge implications. Perhaps the Minister will reply on that matter.
	With regard to money, it is welcomed that the payments are starting so soon. All those affected will be grateful for that. However, will the money include advances to farmers against their eventual compensation payment, particularly with regard to animal welfare because obviously there is a great lack of cash flow at the moment? Further, will the financial aid cover the "over-30 months" scheme and also the lambs which have cut second teeth?
	I turn to the question of reinsurance for farmers and insurance for those who want to put on events in the countryside. I was not sure from the Statement whether that issue was covered. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
	I move now to emergency powers. The Statement urges farmers to co-operate with the Government, particularly those who may have infected animals or be close to the culls. Do the Government have existing powers if that co-operation is not forthcoming or do they need to return to Parliament and get extra powers? They have made appeals to farmers, but, understandably, some farmers are reluctant to co-operate with the decisions, particularly when they have clean stock which they hope will not be included. If emergency powers are needed, what are the Government's plans to bring them forward?
	The Statement referred to the appointment of some 11 directors of operations. Perhaps the Minister will say whether they are to be MAFF officials or who they are to be. Further, what will their relationship be to the vets, the slaughtermen and the Army? Lastly, who at the end of the day will be in charge of those directors? The Statement is not clear on those matters.
	The Minister referred to animals in isolation, animals that are being kept indoors. Will animals which have been kept indoors be exempt from a contiguous cull?
	Vaccination was referred to in the Statement. That question has been talked about at some length in this House. I accept that there is no easy option. I think that we all agree with that. What are the criteria that are referred to in the Statement? What will decide the Government to kick in on the question of vaccinations? Are there enough vaccines available? Have the Government considered vaccination of dairy farm cattle first--I do not include beef cattle--because of the possible threat to our milk supply? Again the Statement is not very clear on that subject.
	The Statement refers to trying to open more of our countryside. Will that be left as a local decision? If so, how will people find out which parts of the countryside are open, because it may be that within a certain area, or even within a county, some is open and some is closed? Will it be the responsibility of the tourist board to act as a help-line or will there be a MAFF organised help-line in each of those areas?
	I have another question. The Statement states:
	"Secondly, once all the necessary veterinary inspections and blood testing have been completed we will be looking to lift one or two infected areas completely where there have been no new cases for 30 days".
	Is that a simple statement or does it involve anything else?
	We on this side of the House very much hope that the Government will reinstate our daily records to keep us informed of the achievements in, and control of, the outbreak. It is crucial that we know that, especially during the Recess when, if the figures are not available, none of us will be able to judge or comment in any way during that time.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in the other place. Have the two new and fairly isolated cases been dealt with by computer modelling? Are there firm theories as to how those cases may have occurred? Is the cause likely to be airborne? What advice has been given, in view of the change in weather conditions in the past few weeks?
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that her colleague mentioned the possibility of a lorry transferring the disease to an isolated place. I think that I asked about that route during questions on the previous Statement about road closures. I hope that the Ministry is keeping under review the issue of road closures and disinfectant points, even in so far uninfected places.
	I wonder whether it would be helpful for the Government to think about changing the language slightly from countryside open and countryside closed to something that reflects reality a little more. It is footpaths which are open or closed; the countryside is open everywhere. Indeed, I went to an open event held at a local pottery in the middle of the Somerset Levels at the weekend, and the public were well aware that it was open. It was on the road and very well supported.
	The public often go to the countryside just to look. In our discussions on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, noble Lords agreed that the public often do not walk anywhere; they park their cars and look at the view. If they are happy to do that and then visit the local pub, that is marvellous. Perhaps we should remind everyone that that too can be a pleasant activity that people have enjoyed for years.
	I have a couple of specific questions to ask the Minister. Has MAFF drawn up plans for the lambs that would normally be exported at this time of year? We usually expect sales of new lambs to be coming on line shortly. There is, I understand, a backlog of 1.6 million hoggets--lambs about a year old--as well as new lambs. I wonder whether the Government are thinking of undertaking a promotional campaign for British lamb to counteract the shortfall in the lamb export market. Given the effectiveness of the licence to slaughter scheme, perhaps not enough is being said about buying British meat. When I shop in local supermarkets, I do not find British meat widely on sale or widely labelled, which is an absolute disgrace.
	Finally, I should like to ask the Minister about the animal welfare disposal scheme. I understand that there are difficulties and that farmers are running out of feed. The Minister mentioned that stock are still being kept indoors and that that is being encouraged. But feed is an issue. It is still wet and cold in many places and animals kept outside are suffering severe difficulties. It seems that the intervention board does not have computerised records of the applications made to it and it is suffering a severe backlog. I understand that it is very difficult to get through to the intervention board and, although there is an MPs' hotline, my honourable friend from another place has informed me that it is stone cold. The Minister said that it was put in place as a last resort, which it certainly is, but it must be activated quickly for those in great need. The animal welfare issues are obviously extremely severe.
	Will the Minister consider allowing local vets to authorise short distance movements of stock to better conditions, particularly in light of the fact that the intervention board is clearly unable to cope with the vast volume of applications it is receiving at the moment?

Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their contributions, which were, as ever, based on great knowledge.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that there are concerns about the numbers of carcasses awaiting disposal. We are all concerned and that is why so much effort has been put into targeting the 24 hours and 48 hours periods and opening up extra disposal sites. I am the last to be over-optimistic. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that the statistics were extremely gloomy. However, the statistics of the number of cases over the last week were not extremely gloomy; they were not along the worst curve that the epidemiologists predicted. While there is no certainty that that means that the number of cases has reached a plateau, we can say that the graph is not continuing on the curve that was predicted by all the epidemiologists. That reflects the enormous amount of work that is being undertaken.
	I can assure the noble Baroness that as long as she has access to a website or telephone to ring the helpline, she can find out the number of new cases, the figures updated during the day and the daily cumulative figures of the animals identified for slaughter, those awaiting slaughter and those awaiting disposal. Those figures will be divided by species.
	There was a wobble on those figures because people were anxious to ensure that we were comparing like with like, day by day, week by week. It is not always easy to do that. The number of new cases reported in a single day will not be comparable with the number of infected premises slaughtered out within 24 hours because the figure relates to 24 hours back. The same applies to neighbouring premises slaughtered out in 48 hours, because the figure refers to 48 hours back. We need to ensure that the data are comparable and when that is done the information will be made available.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about airlifting food. She should be careful about that, especially with regard to helicopters, which are great for spreading disease and virus and should not be used in these kinds of circumstances. If transfers are made by lorry, there are basic biosecurity and disinfectant routines to follow, which are extremely important. It is crucial for all livestock farmers, whether or not they have disease on their farms, to act as if they have in terms of movements on and off their farms.
	That relates to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the epidemiology of these new cases. It was always known and suggested by the epidemiologists that there would be what they call "sparking"--new cases beyond infected areas. That would not necessarily be because of wind-borne disease, but because of person-to-person and vehicle movements. Obviously we investigate every case.
	I echo what the noble Baroness said about not having a bland message about the countryside being open or closed. It is a matter of footpaths. Some of them are closed because they go through farmland or are near susceptible animals and so should be closed. Some are still being closed on a deeply precautionary basis, which is not based on veterinary or scientific advice. That has a ripple effect on all sorts of other business, of the kind to which the noble Baroness alluded. The matter has to be examined case by case. Some footpaths are closed in some counties, but in counties that do not have a single case, to close all footpaths so that no one can go to a country pub is a deeply damaging message for the rural economy.
	In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, animals taken under current policies are taken on veterinary advice that they have been exposed to infection. That means that they are being taken under the Animal Health Act. We have the necessary powers and so there is no need for emergency legislation. The noble Baroness asked about vaccination. We have stocks of 500,000 high dose vaccines. We have European cover to vaccinate in Cumbria and in Devon if that should be the policy decision. The noble Baroness asked whether there are enough doses of vaccine. That depends on the intention. If one intends to vaccinate 55 million animals--a mass vaccination--there are not enough doses. It depends on whether one is going for, as the noble Baroness suggested, the dairy herd, the dairy herd in specific areas or vaccination as a firebreak. How much vaccine one needs depends also on whether one is using vaccination as an adjunct to slaughter.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about the welfare disposal scheme. She will be reassured to know that the intervention board has written to everyone who has registered with the scheme. It should be a scheme of last resort. That means we do have to take action to open up the livestock markets--from market to slaughter for uninfected animals--and it is hoped that we can make some progress on that. The noble Baroness's point about LVIs licensing short distance movements is an important one. The frustration involved in getting through to the intervention board has been noted. We have installed a good many extra lines. However, as the noble Baroness said, it is a last resort scheme. It is important to ensure that the urgent welfare cases are dealt with and that the scheme does not become an alternative to the market, particularly in that area of hoggets, to which she referred, where normally there would be an export market.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in East Anglia, where I live, we are fortunate enough not to have this terrible pestilence, yet farmers are still being forced to slaughter thousands of sheep because they cannot move them, despite what the Minister said. They have no more food. The food has run out. The welfare disposal scheme is not working because it is practically impossible, first, to get through and, secondly, to get someone to slaughter the animals. We have thousands of starving sheep. There is chaos. Most of the countryside and footpaths are closed. I am referring to East Anglia and Norfolk. Is the Minister really satisfied with the situation?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand that in the very near future Norfolk will reopen many of its footpaths. Of course I am not happy if sheep are in deep distress. Norfolk is not an infected area. Those sheep can go, under licence, into the food chain. As I understand it, there are no problems--if the noble Baroness tells me otherwise, I shall be glad to hear it--about licensing into the food chain. There are problems with the welfare disposal scheme. I recognise that. I acknowledged it in my remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. There have been huge problems.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Baroness has misunderstood that question. My noble friend asked whether the Minister is absolutely satisfied that there are no healthy sheep in uninfected areas that are likely to be killed by the RSPCA because there is no food for them.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I did not understand that to be precisely the question. I am not satisfied that that is the case. That is why we have given a great deal of advice to people about managing welfare problems on farms. We have made it possible to move animals, particularly pregnant ewes, for which there was a problem, either over short distances or on the longer distance movement scheme. We have also introduced as a last resort the welfare disposal scheme. That scheme is not currently operating as it should. The throughput is very limited at the moment. We are making an enormous effort to get more abattoirs working and more landfill sites for eventual disposal working. But--I revert to what I said at the beginning--the most urgent cases come from infected areas where there is no possibility of movement onto the market. Of course, there are also welfare problems in non-infected areas. Of course, everyone is suffering because of the disease. We have put in place a scheme. It is not working as well as it should be. That is why we are putting a great deal of effort into making it work better.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, her department and the Army for the efforts they have made. However, there is still concern about the movement of stock and about the application of form D. There are restrictions but farmers have not been told of the restrictions. Farmers have also been subjected to form D but have not been told when the restrictions have been lifted. There are persistent press reports in Cheshire about the movement of carcasses to rendering plants and to the fact that they have been taken in open-top lorries and that spillages are occurring. Can my noble friend comment on those points?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend asked about form D. Farmers should know whether they are under a form D because it has to be personally served on them. Some of the confusion may have arisen because some form Ds are time limited to 21 days and simply expire at the end of that time. That is marked on the form D. Some of them are not time limited and have to be specifically notified. If there have been problems with that, perhaps my noble friend can let me know.
	My noble friend referred to the movement of carcasses. Concern has been expressed on that point. The veterinary risk assessment has been carefully undertaken. The journeys are not in open lorries. They are in lorries that are doubly sealed--once with weighted-down polythene and then with tarpaulins over the top. I am sure that on occasion it will not be impossible to find someone who has not abided by the rules. If that is so, we can follow those up. But the system in place seeks to ensure that when there are trips through non-infected areas they do not pose a disease risk.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, perhaps I may be forgiven for bringing her back for a moment to the welfare scheme. Will she bear in mind the plight of those sheep farmers who brought in their ewes for lambing some weeks ago and in past weeks have lost hundreds if not thousands of ewes and lambs as a result of welfare problems arising not from a lack of food but from very poor physical conditions, which have led to some lambs being smothered and dying of disease in overcrowded sheds and holding fields? Will her department give sympathetic consideration to the losses suffered by farmers in those conditions? Will it recognise that farmers in those conditions, particularly where they are very near foot and mouth areas, really deserve to be compensated at the same rate as their colleagues who have had foot and mouth? In the past week I have had one farmer on the telephone to me saying, "I wish I had foot and mouth on my farm".

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are anomalous regimes according to the circumstances in which people find themselves and which are nothing to do with their own intervention. That is a far broader issue of consequential loss at a time of disease that applies in the circumstances described by the noble Lord and in many others as well. The farmers who depend on bed and breakfast activity that they have not been able to carry out have lost income, just as farmers have lost ewes through lambing. Pregnant ewes are a big problem. There have been more than 50,000 applications for licences for movement under the welfare scheme. More than 90 per cent have been granted. As I said earlier, the welfare disposal scheme is a real problem, but we should not forget that we have tackled these problems in some areas and tackled them satisfactorily.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, further to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, I know that the Minister is aware of the communication problems that we have encountered. I know that the Minister is also aware that on Saturday I spent a great deal of time trying to sort out those problems in Worcester. As a result of talking to the vet in the area, I believe that it would be extremely helpful if those groups which are accustomed to working on the telephone and which have local knowledge, such as citizens' advice bureaux and the Samaritans, could greatly help local veterinary services by providing farmers with consolation. We should not forget that farmers are in an extremely anxious and wound-up state. They ring the State Veterinary Service because they are worried about what will happen to their stock. Once they know that the animals have got to die, they accept the situation. However, does the Minister agree that the period in between when farmers do not know exactly what is happening and it appears that no one is able to tell them is particularly stressful? Can the Minister look at this and see whether the problem can be resolved?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Countess has put her finger on an important point. A great deal of work is being done to provide support for people in distress on the national level, primarily through the Rural Stress Information Network. Furthermore, cross-referencing takes place with the Samaritans, the RABI and other organisations. However, there is also an enormous demand at the local level for specific information. Vets on the ground who are desperately getting out to fight the disease have difficulty in trying to deal with those farmers who are one down the line, so to speak. Part of the improvements in regional operations being led by regional operations directors concerns the strengthening of communications efforts in the widest sense. I shall certainly look again at the point made by the noble Countess to see how we can ensure that clear, concise and specifically relevant information is disseminated locally.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may express my astonishment that the Statement made by her right honourable friend made no reference to the dangers posed by the disease being spread via unburied corpses or corpses which have not been disposed of, of which apparently there are 329,000. I appreciate, however, that the noble Baroness touched on this in her later remarks. Is she aware that an increasing number of farmers believe that this has been one of the main reasons for the spread of the disease, in particular the "leap-frogging" of the disease via gulls? The birds eat the meat from carcasses. Does the noble Baroness know that recently in Cumbria, after lying on the ground for several days, a pile of corpses was about to be moved with a JCB? As soon as work began, a host of rats escaped from the pile to make their way to neighbouring farms. Will the noble Baroness now admit that, contrary to the Government's comment that a minimal risk of disease spread is posed by corpses, there is a real danger? Just as a target has been set for the period between diagnosis and slaughter, will she set a target for the period between slaughter and disposal?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, a target was set for the period between slaughter and disposal at the beginning of the outbreak, as was a target set for the period between diagnosis and slaughter. The problem lies not in setting targets, but in fulfilling those targets when hundreds of thousands of animals have to be dealt with. I know that the noble Lord is concerned about this issue and I know that he does not accept the veterinary advice that I have received and have then transmitted to him on earlier occasions. However, I shall repeat that advice as clearly as I can.
	When animals have been slaughtered on infected premises, the foot and mouth virus will survive in some tissues. For that reason, the outsides of the carcasses are sprayed with disinfectant to kill any surface virus. For those carcasses to contribute to further spread of the disease, it is necessary for the carcasses to come into contact with susceptible animals. Controls on infected premises prevent people from removing anything from them. In most cases where the epidemiology has been examined, it has been found that aerosol transmission from person to animal and from vehicles leaving infected premises to outside flocks and herds have been the sources of further outbreaks. The vast majority of new cases can be traced back to such sources. There is no risk of aerosol transmission from decomposing carcasses because of the pH levels. I know that the noble Lord does not like me to refer to pH levels, but the scientific advice is very clear on this: decomposition after rigor mortis reduces infectivity except in bone--that is why animals that are imported have to be de-boned and so forth. Of course there remains a minimal risk from scavenging animals, but that comes very low down the list of risks of transmission.
	The noble Lord is absolutely right: in an ideal world, one would dispose of all the carcasses instantaneously. However, it is not possible to dispose of 1 million carcasses instantaneously. If priorities have to be set, the main priority has to be given to stopping live animals from exhaling the virus and thus infecting other animals.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on the clarity of the information now being given. In particular I point to the clear distinction being drawn between the need to institute the 24-hour cull policy on infected farms and then the need to institute the 48-hour slaughter on the adjoining farms. Although some concerns are still being expressed about the latter priority, is it not now clear, from the information given last week by epidemiologists in a MAFF briefing available to all noble Lords, that the best guarantee of "bringing down the curve" in infection rates over the next few weeks is, as I have said, to institute the 24-hour cull policy on infected farms, followed by the 48-hour cull on adjoining farms? As the Minister has now made this point very clear, everyone should get behind that policy.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I should say to him that sometimes delays occur not through what is always referred to as bureaucracy, but because a farmer will not readily accept that animals free of symptoms need to be culled. Farmers care about their animals; they care about the dairy and beef herds that they have built up over many years. Some think that it is possible to wait and see whether the disease develops. Sadly, those animals can be free of symptoms but infectious. That is why the 48-hour cull on adjoining farms is absolutely crucial to the policy. Furthermore, that is why everyone needs to understand the scientific basis for the 48-hour cull and why the co-operation of all concerned, hard though it is, is absolutely crucial in the fight against disease.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, can I ask the noble Baroness how much money has been spent advertising the fact that the countryside is open? Would it not have been more sensible, in the effort to encourage people to go to the countryside, to try to persuade the media not to display such grotesque pictures in our national newspapers and on television?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not believe that those two things are mutually exclusive. Sometimes the only way to get the truth into the media is to pay for it, which is why the informative advertising campaign, which I believe has cost something over £1 million, is extremely worthwhile. It is important for people to understand that there is no single, simple, blanket message. Different circumstances do apply and the public should not be led to believe that everything is closed because certain footpaths are closed. We have welcomed the opening by the National Trust and by English Heritage of a number of major tourist attractions. For example, I understand that Stonehenge is about to reopen. Such moves transmit important signals. We need to give people clear information based on scientific and veterinary advice, and that needs to be done without interventions from the media, who sometimes prefer a good story to the boring detail. For that reason, the campaign represents money well spent.

Earl Peel: My Lords, in the Statement the Minister referred to certain farmers who have been moving stock without a licence. Regrettably, I can confirm that that is the case. I mentioned that point when we debated this matter last week. I urge the Government to take very strong action against those few bad apples that are letting the side down. I know of a case in my part of the world where precisely this has been done. To the best of my knowledge, unfortunately the farming family concerned has got away with it. It has caused a great deal of consternation in the Yorkshire Dales and, again, I urge the Minister to take action.
	I should like to ask one further question on the issue of hefted flocks. So far as I know, to date we have not been given a clear directive from the Government as regards how they will cope if the disease gets into hefted flocks in the fells, the Yorkshire Dales or the North Yorkshire Moors. Fortunately, it has not happened yet--but I fear that the way things are going there is a real danger that it will.
	I appreciate that, at the moment, most of the ewes are off the hill and on the in-by land, but when they go back on to the open fells, if there was an infection, how on earth would the Government deal with the problem? Would they introduce vaccination; would they allow the disease simply to go through the flocks; or would they instigate a mass slaughter? We need some direction from the Minister as to how she and her department would deal with such a very unfortunate situation if it were to arise.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is an extremely worrying situation. At the moment, when we have potential cases of this kind, we carry out a very detailed analysis to try to apply the principles of contiguous premises in circumstances which are far from the normality. It is an enormous anxiety. There is a debate about exactly the kind of options described by the noble Earl. Vaccination--perhaps not of the sheep themselves but of neighbouring cattle--would be a possibility. But any action involving vaccination would have the repercussions that we debated last week.

Earl Peel: My Lords, with the greatest respect, debate will simply not be enough. I am looking for a definitive statement from the Government informing the House of how they will deal with such a situation if it were to arise.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Earl will not get that definitive statement today. I am not going to tell him something in order to be definitive and risk it being wrong. We have not yet reached exactly the situation that the noble Earl described. I can merely reassure him that a great deal of work is going on in order that, were we to be in those circumstances, we would have done the least worst thing. I can assure the noble Earl that it will be the least worst thing rather than any ideal solution.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, the letter that was sent out today urging all livestock farmers to co-operate is entirely appropriate and is in keeping with all of the action taken so far. However, I am concerned when I hear that a very small number of farmers will resist. If this should be the case and they challenge a decision through the courts, will it be possible to prosecute such cases with great speed? Clearly time will be of the essence--I am talking hours rather than days or weeks--for the hearing of such cases for the general good of all farmers in the vicinity.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the ideal is for peer pressure and an understanding by individuals to result in co-operation with a policy that is in everyone's interest. It is possible under the Animal Health Act for action to be taken without consent. Obviously, no one wants to get into that position. It is equally possible for there to be judicial review of such a decision. Then it is up to the courts to decide whether the policy must be halted in the interim--I am grateful to see the noble Lord nodding--or whether the current policy should continue while judicial review proceedings go through. So I am afraid that, again, I cannot give a simple or absolutely certain answer.

Elections Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee upon the Bill.

Lord Elton: My Lords, on that Motion, may I ask the Leader of the House if she will put to the Procedure Committee--

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Question is that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I should have known better. Will the Leader of the House draw to the attention of the Procedure Committee that a number of noble Lords were not able to comment on this Statement--or, indeed, on the previous Statement on agriculture--and will she ask it to consider whether 20 minutes is enough for that purpose?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is not within my gift to refer a matter to the Procedure Committee. If the noble Lord wishes to do so, the Procedure Committee may well entertain such a submission. However, having myself experienced the handling of Statements on the summit conferences of European leaders, it is always the case that more noble Lords wish to take part than is possible in 20 minutes--but that is one of the conventions of the House.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in that case, would it not be reasonable for the Government to grant your Lordships' House a debate on the Treaty of Nice in advance of the Bill coming before us for ratification?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not expect me to say anything other than, "Nice try".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly on Clause 1.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Countess of Mar) in the Chair.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 5, at end insert--
	"( ) In subsection (1), "local government election" means the same as in section 203(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983."

Baroness Hamwee: I can be brief. The amendment seeks to include in the Bill a definition of "local government election" by reference to an existing definition in the Representation of the People Act 1983, which defines "local government election" as,
	"the election of councillors for any electoral area"--
	and which defines "electoral area" to include all those electoral areas with which the Committee is familiar, including parish and community areas.
	I asked the Minister at Second Reading whether the Bill extends to town, parish and community councils, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, confirmed that it does. Indeed, the compendium letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which has been sent to many of your Lordships, also states quite simply "It does". I tabled the amendment before I received the letter. However, it may be appropriate to ask that if a definition was thought to be necessary in the statute passed in 1983, why is it not necessary now?
	Stretching that point a little in order to make a point--this is the best place at which I can make it--perhaps I may refer to another paragraph of the compendium letter which refers to postal votes. It explains, among other things, that people who have submitted an application for a postal vote for 3rd May--for a particular reason appertaining to 3rd May--will have to submit a fresh application. I do not seek to argue the point, but can the Government ensure that returning officers are recommended to write to those who have applied for postal votes for that date to alert them to the need to apply afresh for the later date? There is scope for some confusion and some electors will assume that, having applied for the earlier date, their application will stand. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. As she said, it was tabled before my compendium letter was sent out. I hope that the letter has clarified the situation. As I explained, it is clear that the Bill as it stands covers elections to town and parish councils. That is certainly my understanding. Any elections to such bodies which would have otherwise been held in the period 3rd May to 6th June are also postponed. I accept that this is not spelt out in the Bill. However, it is implicit and I can assure the Committee that that is the case.
	The noble Baroness asked about postal votes. We shall probably have to talk to the Association of Electoral Registration Officers to see whether what the noble Baroness suggested can be practically done. I am sure that it can be done. I take the point. It seems to be an important point and I shall certainly pass it on. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Norton of Louth: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 5, at end insert--
	"( ) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of elections to unitary authorities.

Lord Norton of Louth: At Second Reading, we discussed the case for delaying elections from 3rd May to 7th June in fairly general terms. There is a need to tease out why the elections should be postponed on a uniform basis. Local elections are not all held on the same day throughout the United Kingdom; normally local government elections are held in Northern Ireland on the third Wednesday in May, not on the first Thursday.
	I can see why it is difficult to proceed with elections to county councils. In some areas it is extremely difficult to campaign: most of those involved in electioneering are busy trying to cope with the foot and mouth crisis. I can see that there would be difficulty in allowing elections to proceed in some counties but not in others. However, unitary authorities are a separate category. Only 11 have elections this year, and of those nine are electing one-third of the membership. Also, the authorities generally cover urban or suburban areas. I therefore felt it appropriate to ask the Minister to justify why these elections are included.
	I can see that the explanation could be practical or moral. I checked on the practical explanation earlier: it relates to campaigning. It is not difficult to hold the elections at a particular time; the Government have conceded that it is physically possible to hold them. I doubt whether the present crisis will interfere substantially with local campaigning in unitary authorities. There may be a practical objection, in that it may be difficult for the parties nationally to have to cope with one set of elections on 3rd May and another on 7th June. That objection may also embody a political agenda which may not be confined simply to local elections.
	The moral objection is that foot and mouth disease is a UK-wide problem, or at least a problem affecting most of Britain, and therefore the nation should be seen as acting together in facing the crisis. The decision to delay is thus as much symbolic as practical.
	Given that the Bill was not subject to sustained scrutiny in another place--indeed, there was no debate at all at Committee stage--it is important that we use this opportunity to ensure that the Government justify the Bill's provisions in some detail. In that sense, the amendment is not designed to be hostile; it is designed to tease a response out of the Government and to give them an opportunity to place on record the reasons for this measure. It is important that people outside this House know why we are passing this Bill. Are elections to unitary authorities being postponed along with county council elections for practical or for symbolic reasons, or both? I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord has economically pointed out, the amendment would remove unitary authorities from the scope of the Bill. That means that on 3rd May there would be elections in 11 unitary authorities, one of which is the Isle of Wight, where there are vast areas of agricultural land. It is true that there has been no occurrence of foot and mouth disease there so far. Another, surprisingly, is Blackburn with Darwen. It may sound like an urban area, but it is not. It contains significant rural areas, and there are confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease in Lancashire.
	Most unitary authorities have some rural hinterland. In Berkshire, for instance, three unitary authorities are up for election in May. There have been confirmed outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the county. I was reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, told us; namely that Essex was the first county to witness the foot and mouth outbreak--and there are two unitary authorities in Essex.
	The answer is that it is not a question that is either moral or practical. It seems to me that the general feeling of the country was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; namely, that it would have been unseemly to continue. I repeat, and stress, what my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have said on a number of occasions. We put off the elections with great care and caution, and indeed reluctance, for the reasons that were identified fully at Second Reading: so that we should be able to hold elections with the minimal period of delay, having arrived at a situation where mechanisms would be in place to bring matters under control.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: In the spirit of this debate, I should be grateful to the noble Lord who moved the amendment if he could help me in my thinking. One of the difficulties with this patchwork approach is that someone somewhere has to make the decision as to which authorities should go ahead and which should not.
	I have difficulty in thinking of an objective set of criteria that could be used in making such a decision. My fear is that in many cases the public perception would be that the decision had been made more for political reasons than for practical ones. Given that the issue of public support for elections is a prime reason for delay, it would be a nonsense to have a process that had less public support than when we started.

Lord Norton of Louth: I take the noble Baroness's point. I am very conscious of the argument that can be deployed against my amendment. I hoped that it would tease out with greater clarity the case for the Bill, which relates to the precise point that the noble Baroness was making; namely, the criteria that justify the measure. In that sense, I was disappointed with the Minister's response. It somewhat muddies the water. Saying that the reason is neither practical nor moral and using the phrase "would have been unseemly", rather than clarifying the criteria on which the Bill has been brought forward, adds to the confusion.
	I hope that later amendments that I have tabled will serve the purpose of drawing out the reasons from the Government, so that we can be clear and we can send out the message. I am not making a case for the amendment and I do not intend to pursue it. I merely use it as a peg to draw out and make sure that we are quite clear in regard to the criteria for the Bill.
	As I say, the noble and learned Lord's response, rather than clarifying matters, adds to the confusion. I hope that we may come to greater clarity when we debate later amendments. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 4, I must point out to the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 on the grounds of pre-emption.

Lord Norton of Louth: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (2).

Lord Norton of Louth: I have tabled two amendments which provide alternatives to the provision postponing the holding of by-elections. It is clear from what has just been said that they are mutually exclusive. I did so because there will clearly not be an opportunity to come back with amendments on Report which take into account the Minister's response at this stage. Looking at the Marshalled List, I see that other Members of the Committee have adopted a similar approach.
	Subsection (2) provides that by-elections that would otherwise be held on 3rd May or in the period from 3rd May to 6th June should be postponed until 7th June. The reasons for this are not altogether clear. There seems little reason why by-elections should be postponed, be it for practical or for symbolic purposes.
	By-elections can be held up to 3rd May. I fully understand the reasons. If they can be held under the present conditions, why cannot they be held in the period between 3rd May and 7th June? By-elections are not the strain on the time and resources of parties and candidates that full council elections clearly are. Is the odd by-election, the odd casual vacancy, going to draw away those who are centrally engaged in fighting the foot and mouth outbreak? If it is likely to do so, why not allow the local authority to ask the Secretary of State to make an order postponing a particular election? That is what the alternative option provides for.
	However, I am more wedded to the principal amendment; I see little practical reason why such elections should not go ahead. There seems little place for postponing by-elections on symbolic grounds. Postponing or not postponing them will not send out a particularly strong signal one way or the other. They do not achieve high public visibility.
	Leaving a local council seat vacant for over a month may not seem too important, but it may have important consequences. One or more casual vacancies could affect party control of a particular authority. Given that, why not allow casual vacancies to be filled? As I say, it seems somewhat perverse to have by-elections up until 3rd May when we are tackling a very severe crisis, but not to have them between 3rd May and 7th June. If they are to be postponed, then we need to be quite clear as to the reasons. I therefore look forward to a full response from the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am reminding myself that we are now at the Committee stage of this Bill. Nevertheless, I return to the point that I made earlier: an unseemly course of action may be unseemly because it lacks a moral basis. The first amendment would allow by-elections to be continued from 3rd May to 7th June. I believe that that would cause puzzlement to the general public. It might well be distressing because those "casual" vacancies could well be by-elections in significantly affected areas; for example, there might be by-elections in Cumbria or Devon--in other words, in the middle of the worst affected areas. I do not believe that that would carry public support.
	If we are sticking to Second Reading principles, I agree that not every action in a Bill is necessarily perfectly justifiable on every conceivable basis. However, I believe that this Bill has, first, the general support of the public; and, secondly, the overwhelming support of this Chamber.
	The noble Lord's second amendment falls into the Scott trap, if I may put it in that way, because it lacks any rational sustainability--

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I should emphasise that that is not the Scott trap by way of unfortunate question; it is supporting the Scott analysis, if I may make myself quite plain in that respect. I know that the noble Baroness took that to be my meaning, but I could hear unworthy giggling to my left.
	The second amendment would mean that a local authority was able to apply to the Secretary of State who would have to reach a conclusion that,
	"the capacity to hold the election is affected substantially by the prevalence of foot and mouth disease".
	But when will he make such a decision? Will he do so a month before the election is allowed, in the second or third week, or in the week immediately before the by-election when there might be a very significant outbreak? Therefore, I believe, first, that the noble Baroness's question is not capable of acceptable rational answer; and, secondly, it is not workable.

Lord Norton of Louth: I am grateful to some extent to the Minister for that response. However, it worries me slightly because I can see the argument against my amendment; indeed, I am slightly worried because I believe that I could have put it better than the Minister. The arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord do not get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps I may dissect the arguments deployed. The first is that there would be puzzlement on the part of the general public if the selection to fill a casual vacancy in a local government area went ahead. I doubt whether it would be a case of puzzlement. I doubt whether the general public would notice. They do not do so at present, and I cannot imagine that they would be that fussed about such a process going ahead. Therefore, I do not believe that the argument against my amendment can be addressed at that particular level.
	Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that if this occurred in an area that was affected by foot and mouth there would be a problem with it going ahead. In that case, my second amendment would kick in. So the Minister's objection to my second amendment is essentially in terms of drafting deficiency rather than being directed at the principle embodied within it. The arguments against my amendment are not convincing. They do not get to the heart of the argument both for postponing elections on a uniform basis and postponing by-elections.
	Therefore, I make the same point I made when speaking to the previous amendment. There is a case here for the Government to enunciate clearly and sharply the reasons for the Bill. My amendments are not designed primarily to bring forward arguments as to why they are particularly deficient; they are designed to tease out the Government's intentions, and to give them an opportunity to place clearly and loudly on the public record the precise reasons for the Bill. I am worried that the Government have not yet risen to, or met, the challenge. However, I shall keep trying. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 1, line 10, at end insert "; but any person who submits a nomination form which was completed prior to 1st May 2001, and which contains the name of a proposer, seconder or assentor who was registered to vote prior to 1st May 2001, but who is no longer registered to vote at the same time the nomination is submitted, shall be deemed to have been validly nominated if his nomination would have been valid for an election held on 3rd May 2001."

Baroness Hamwee: Again, I can be brief with my introduction to this amendment, which was tabled before I read the Minister's letter. The amendment provides that any nominations proposed and seconded by an elector registered to vote before 1st May but who, because of the new rolling register arrangements, is not registered to vote when the nominations are submitted for the new date will, nevertheless, be deemed to have been validly nominated.
	The Minister's letter says that the Bill provides that any nominations that were valid for the elections on 3rd May will remain valid for the elections on 7th June. First, I thought it would be helpful to get that point on to the record in the sense of it being included in the Hansard report of these proceedings. Secondly, can the Minister say how it is that the Bill makes such provision? For example, is it implicit in the provision that because it is the same election, but taking place on a later date, the nomination remains valid? I beg to move.

Viscount Bridgeman: This amendment mirrors the amendment that we tabled in another place. I understand that the point has been answered, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, by the Minister's compendium letter. In the circumstances, we support the action taken.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Minister a question that is related to this issue in so far as it deals with a matter that has arisen out of the delay in the election. We are technically still in a period that we would call "purdah" in local government; in other words, we are operating under certain restrictions as to publicity, who can speak, and so on. The period is set down in the Local Government Act 1986 where it refers to the period between the opening for nominations and polling day. I seek some clarification as to whether Royal Assent to this Bill will close that period of purdah and then re-open it at a later date, or, alternatively, whether local authorities need to have regard to such issues for the whole period between now and polling day on 7th June.
	There is a particular importance in this respect. The guidance that deals with the situation recommends that senior elected members seeking re-election should not act as spokesmen for their authorities, and so on. However, given the fact that part of the rationale behind this delay is the need for clear leadership, both locally and nationally, it seems to me rather strange to tie the hands of the very people locally who deal with such issues. Therefore, some clarification would be appreciated.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the matter was covered in the letter. Where valid nominations have been received for elections that have been postponed, it is the case that they will remain valid for 7th June without the need for the candidate to go to the trouble of collecting fresh signatures and submitting new nomination papers. Any candidate in that position in England and Wales will be able to withdraw his nomination at any point up to the new closing date of nominations--10th May--and will then have a further opportunity up until the 15th May to withdraw once he has seen the statement of persons so properly nominated.
	Clause 1(2) says:
	"If the day of election for a local government election in England or Wales to fill a casual vacancy would otherwise be 3rd May 2001, or a day after that day but before 7th June 2001, it is to be postponed to 7th June 2001".
	We believe that the wording of subsection (3), which follows, covers the issue now under discussion. Therefore, we do not believe that there is need for the amendment. Quite simply, the Bill provides that anyone who is validly nominated for an election that is deferred remains validly nominated for the new election, whatever may have happened in the interim to those who signed his nomination papers. It does not matter if, as a consequence of rolling electoral registration, those people have been removed from the relevant electoral register. I am sure that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment because, as I said, the issue is covered by the Bill. I hope that my explanation has further clarified the situation.
	I hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would raise the issue of purdah. Since she raised the matter with me earlier, I have taken further advice. The Government do not issue specific guidance but the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity was updated on 2nd April this year. From the period of the notice of election until the election takes place all forms of proactive publicity for candidates and other politicians involved in the election should cease. We are not aware of any other guidance from the LGA or within government on these matters. Effectively, a period of purdah is in place as regards the elections that were to have taken place on 3rd May until the Bill is enacted. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the current purdah period will cease until, of course, the election process starts again. That purdah cannot be lifted until the elections are completed on 7th June. I hope that that clarifies that point.
	Those who take a leading public role in dealing with problems on the ground must exercise their positions of leadership effectively. I do not think that any reasonable person would object to the leader of x or y county council issuing a statement which had a direct bearing on tackling some of the problems associated with foot and mouth disease. I hope that that clarifies that issue.

Baroness Hamwee: The Minister's comments were helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Bridgeman: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 1, line 18, at end insert--
	"(6A) Paragraph 6A(1) of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 (date of annual meetings) is to have effect for the year 2001 as if for "June 30" there were substituted "July 31"."

Viscount Bridgeman: This amendment would put back by a month the deadline for the annual meeting of police authorities and other joint authorities to which councils nominate members. When the matter was raised in another place Mr Mike O'Brien said that the power in Clause 7 would allow an order to be made to postpone the date on which police authority annual meetings had to be held and that he hoped that that provided reassurance. I note that that is confirmed in the Minister's letter. However, why cannot that be specified on the face of the Bill as our amendment suggests? The annual meeting date for councils is postponed on the face of the Bill. Why cannot similar provision be made for the annual meetings of police authorities and other joint authorities? I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I indicated in the letter, we propose to use the order-making power in Clause 7 to postpone the latest date by which police authority annual meetings must be held. We have in mind to put the date back to 31st July--as the amendment proposes--but we are open to representations from the Association of Police Authorities, which might want a slightly later date. The reason we have not included the provision on the face of the Bill is simply that that would fix it permanently, as it were, and we do not want to do that. However, I give a firm undertaking that we shall use the order-making power in that way and that we are very much open to representations. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount.

Baroness Hamwee: I was trying to find a way to ask the question I am about to ask. The Minister's reference to representations provides me with that opportunity. Last week a number of noble Lords mentioned the work that new councils will have to do. I refer to the introduction of new council constitutions. I have only just discovered that there is some problem with the date of the introduction. It is understood--I do not know whether that is more than a rumour--that the date for the introduction of the new constitutions under the Local Government Act 2000 will have to be delayed because there is a problem in laying the regulations. I hope that the Minister can clarify that point. I am sorry that I have not given him more opportunity to establish the position in order to report it to the Chamber and, perhaps more importantly, to those many thousands of councillors who will be anxious to know what the position is.

Lord Hanningfield: Before the Minister replies, I hope that I may add that this morning I discussed a programme in Essex. I was disappointed not to see any reference to the matter in the letter we received as in the debate last week several of us mentioned the problems of submitting a plan by the end of June. I have been told that we are awaiting further draft regulations. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the Committee is aware, I am not the local government Minister, interested though I am in local government given my background. I am not in a position to answer the points raised by the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I appreciate from what has been said that the matter is of concern. If I were involved in a local authority that might be affected by the matter, I too would express that concern. The best I can do in the circumstances is to undertake to consult with my colleagues within the DETR and ensure that there is a clear line taken on the matter. I am more than happy to write to those who have mentioned the matter and who intend to participate in the discussion. I shall place a copy of that response in the Library.

Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister for replying to my question. Before I withdraw the amendment, will he confirm my understanding of the letter; that is, that it is the intention to use the powers for the year 2001 only?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is the clear intention.

Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Countess of Mar: In calling Amendment No. 10, I point out that if it is accepted I cannot call Amendment No. 11.

Viscount Bridgeman: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 1, line 20, leave out "50%" and insert "75%"

Viscount Bridgeman: Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are probing amendments as regards the levels of increase in election expenses. The Government have increased the limit by 50 per cent in recognition of the postponement. Some candidates may already have suffered abortive expenditure. These amendments merely seek to explore why the figure of 50 per cent was chosen rather than any other figure. Does not the Minister agree that the extension as it applies to all candidates, whenever they were nominated, will significantly advantage candidates who are nominated in May as they will have the full 150 per cent to spend in one month, whereas candidates who are nominated in April may have already spent some of their expenses limit up to two months before the election? What consideration have the Government given to that point? I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: On Second Reading I said that we were concerned that any increase in the expenses limit might tend to favour those who have cash available, but that, on balance, we thought that the figure of 50 per cent was about right. We could not support a higher limit.
	I have given the Minister notice of my next question. What constitutes expenses for the purposes of assessing the limit? It seems to us that there may well be a difference between expenses in the normal sense of the term and expenses in the circumstances that we are discussing. For example, if leaflets have been printed with the date 3rd May but are not delivered and are pulped, would the cost of those leaflets be included in the expenses limit? It would be extremely helpful to be given clear guidance as to what constitutes expenses in these circumstances. Some people may never have had to address the question of what constitutes expenses because they have never been able to afford to spend much.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept the basis on which the noble Viscount has put forward his two alternatives for the Committee's consideration. I quite understand why he has done so.
	I accept that some candidates may already have produced posters, rosettes or leaflets giving the date as 3rd May. The decision to postpone was announced on 2nd April, more than a month before the elections were due and before nominations had closed. We anticipate that only a relatively modest amount of expenditure so far made will turn out to be abortive.
	I was asked why 50 per cent was chosen. Obedient as I always am, I simply repeat what the Home Secretary said in another place. With his usual rather attractive candour, he said that the decision was based on instinct rather than scientific analysis. There can be no other answer. It is interesting that on this occasion the Conservative Party is the party of high spending.
	We have considered what the proportionate response should be to the problem of expenditure that in some instances will be wasted and will need to be made up. It is true that a county council seat does not have quite the same allure as a seat in the United States Senate, but we do not want money to be more important than democratic argument. I have taken advice from people who are much more familiar with local elections than I am and most of them seem to think that this is a proportionate response.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about material that had been printed but was pulped before it was disseminated, as opposed to being pulped by the ungrateful electors. Ultimately, this is a matter for the courts, but our judgment is that it would probably not be counted against expenses if it was not used.

Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his candour in explaining the arithmetic behind the figure that has been arrived at. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.

Viscount Bridgeman: moved Amendment No. 12:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause--
	"POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS: SUPPLY OF REVISIONS TO ROLLING ELECTORAL REGISTER
	(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, an electoral registration officer shall supply, free of charge and on request, one copy of the relevant items to any of the relevant persons.
	(2) Unless the request is for the supply of a printed version, the copy shall be supplied in data form.
	(3) In this section--
	"the relevant items" means the most recent version of any of the items specified in Paragraph 46(1)(a) to (c) of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, where those items are published before 7th June 2001;
	"the relevant persons" means the persons specified in Paragraph 47 (5) to (7) of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001."

Viscount Bridgeman: During the passage of the Representation of the People Act 2000, the Government clearly stated their intention to make the full electoral register available to electoral users. Perhaps the clearest expression of that intent was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who told the House:
	"The full register will be available for electoral purposes to elected representatives, political parties and candidates. This is clearly sensible".--[Official Report, 29/2/00; col. 465.]
	In another place, the Home Secretary also gave a similar assurance. For obvious reasons, Members of another place, political parties and candidates at elections need to be able to use the electoral register for electoral purposes.
	The relevant regulations under the Representation of the People Act, which provide for the full electoral register to be made available to MPs, local councillors, political parties and council and parliamentary candidates, were approved by your Lordships' House in February. However, it has subsequently become apparent that the wording of the regulations does not reflect the Government's intentions.
	The regulations provide that elected representatives, candidates and political parties can request a free copy of the register from electoral registration offices. However, some registration officers around the country are interpreting that as meaning only a copy of the electoral register published in February, after the annual canvass, not the monthly updates that are being made under the new system of rolling registration introduced earlier this year.
	That results in elected representatives, candidates and political parties sometimes having to use out-of-date copies of the electoral register, which become increasingly inaccurate as the year progresses, given that the register is now updated every month.
	In practical terms, that situation could cause a good deal of confusion for candidates and canvassers around election time. In respect of the local government elections, the confusion will be made even worse by the postponement provided for in the Bill, because the registers will undergo a further update before 7th June. Many new voters could be added to the register in the interim period, but candidates and political parties will not know how many, where they live or who they are. If a general election were to be called, voters who had recently moved home and re-registered could find that the freepost mailing from candidates was addressed to the wrong voter.
	The situation is even more confusing precisely because some registration officers are willing to provide the updates and some are not. It is not the fault of the registration officers. They do sterling work, often in difficult circumstances and with limited resources. It is the fault of the regulations, which are unclear. Some registration officers are uncertain and understandably wish to err on the side of caution. We should bring clarity to the situation.
	On a related issue, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will doubtless remember the extensive--indeed exhaustive--debates that he had with my late noble friend, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, during the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As the Minister will recall, several of those debates concerned the requirement placed on political parties by that Act to verify that every donor who gave more than £200 was registered on an electoral register somewhere in the United Kingdom. Lord Mackay pointed out that without a centralised version of the registers, that would be an almost impossible task. He received considerable support from the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, whom I am happy to see in her place, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The Government gave an undertaking during those proceedings to provide the Electoral Commission and the political parties with a centralised, up-to-date, computerised version of the electoral register. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, told the House on 21st November last year, it will be some months before that solution is put in place.
	In the interim period, parties are having to check for themselves that a donor is on the electoral register. As I said earlier, some electoral registration officers are unwilling to provide political parties with the updates to the rolling register because of the lack of clarity in the regulations, despite the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that,
	"It is desirable that both the political parties and the electoral commission have easy access to electoral registers".--[Official Report, 21/11/00; col. 696.]
	All that makes it even harder for political parties to ensure that they are compliant with the new Act. The situation that has arisen as a result of the regulations is clearly contrary to the intentions expressed by Ministers during the debates in your Lordships' House last year.
	I thank your Lordships for your patience in listening to this slightly long speech on this modest but important amendment, which would enable councillors, local government candidates and political parties to receive the rolling update as well as the annual published register. It would exclude parliamentary candidates, because it would not be within the Long Title of the Bill to include them.
	The Government recognise that the existing regulations are deficient. In another place on 26th March, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr O'Brien, stated in a Written Answer that the Government were planning to publish amendments to the regulations to allow elected representatives, political parties and candidates to be supplied with the amendments to the registers. However, my understanding is that those new regulations will be some time in coming and they will certainly not be made before 7th June.
	The amendment would reduce confusion for electoral registration officers, candidates, political parties and electors. That confusion will arise in greater measure as a result of the postponement of the local government elections provided for by the Bill. The amendment would help the elections on 7th June, whether local or also perhaps national, to run more smoothly. It would correct an anomaly in the regulations that is clearly contrary to the expressed intentions of the Government and of Parliament as a whole. I commend the amendment to your Lordships and I hope that it will attract support from all sides of the House. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the noble Viscount said with his usual moderation is quite right. The situation needs to be put right. I do not dissent from his summary and analysis. It was intended that the monthly updates would be available more widely than is provided for in Regulation 47. He is quite right.
	As I understand the matter, he is also right that some electoral administrators are interpreting the regulation in a generous way. Some interpret it in a restrictive way and believe that they are unable to provide the monthly updates to MPs, councillors, political parties and candidates. That is not a satisfactory situation.
	We are looking at the best route via which we may achieve what everyone agrees should be the position. I believe that we have two alternatives: we may bring forward special amending regulations or we may lay regulations before the summer to implement Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 2000.
	It is plain that the House does not want the Bill to be delayed. Equally, it is plain that the noble Viscount has identified an area which is not acceptable. I hope to be able to bring before the House a dedicated regulation as soon as possible after the Easter break. I also hope that I have given as firm an indication as I reasonably can as to what we propose to do.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for intervening in this debate, but I want to spur on the noble and learned Lord in his efforts to bring forward the amended regulations in good time by making two further points about the difficulties of trying to work on out-of-date registers, even if they are only a month or two out of date.
	Everyone who has canvassed in elections knows that one is frequently asked whether a person whom one meets is on the register in a particular area. In the past, the canvasser has been able to look at the register, if he has it with him, or has been able to check with his office and provide the information. However, if the information is out of date, it is possible that he will mislead the electors or be unable to provide them with the correct information.
	My second point concerns the problem of electoral numbers. I understand that electoral registration officers are advised to use a suffix system of numbering where additional electors must be fitted into the list in a subsequent rolling register, or leave blanks where electors have moved away or died, so that the numbers are not entirely consecutive. That is obviously an easier way in which to deal with the register. However, electoral registration officers can, and sometimes do, renumber the whole register from month to month between one rolling register and the next. Obviously, it may be convenient to do so if many changes have occurred in an area during the course of a register from February to February.
	However, again, if the candidates and parties are using old electoral numbers, it will add greatly to the problems if they do not have an up-to-date register. That means that it is important that the noble and learned Lord does as he aims to do and brings before us the amended regulations to correct the position.

Baroness Hamwee: From these Benches we add our encouragement and anticipatory thanks. In referring to the numbers on the register, I believed that the noble and learned Lord was going to talk about the calculation of expenses limits. I assume that the total numbers on the register are relevant for that purpose, too.
	There are many reasons concerning the exercise of democracy why the register to which everyone works should be the correct one. It would be a great pity if, having made this important and very welcome change to the provisions, it was not put into effect throughout the country.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept those supplementary points. Of course, the registers are currently available. We are dealing with updates from April and, therefore, the number of people in question is relatively small. However, I accept that that is not the point of principle for which the noble Viscount contends, and I hope that I have dealt as accommodatingly as possible with his concerns.

Viscount Bridgeman: I am sure that I speak for my noble friend Lord Cope as well as for myself. The Minister has given a most helpful reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Norton of Louth: I gave notice of my intention to oppose Clause 2 in order to give the Government the opportunity to explain why the postponement of local government elections to 7th June is to apply to Northern Ireland. In the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House, both the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, questioned why local elections in Northern Ireland should be postponed. The same question was raised in the other place during debate on the Bill.
	At Second Reading I advanced four criteria that should be met in order to justify postponing the date of elections. The first was that there must be a clearly recognised crisis. There is a crisis in Britain but it is not clear that the situation in Northern Ireland constitutes a crisis. Northern Ireland does not have the same instance of foot and mouth disease as exists in England, Wales and Scotland.
	The second criterion was that the crisis had to affect materially and substantially the capacity to hold an election. Although precautions are in place in the Province in order to deal with foot and mouth disease, there is not necessarily a reason to suppose that the local elections could not go ahead on the scheduled date. The case for postponement in Britain is that many people who are engaged in electioneering are tied up in fighting the crisis and, in any event, would have difficulty in campaigning in the way that they would wish. It is not clear--I put it no stronger than that--that such a situation pertains in Northern Ireland. How many of those engaged in local government in the Province are tied up with tackling the problem of foot and mouth disease?
	The third criterion was that there must be all-party support, and the fourth that there must be adequate parliamentary scrutiny. The need for Clause 2 has been questioned by Members from different parties. However, thus far, remarkably little discussion on the provision has taken place, and there has been only one attempt in the other place by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to justify its inclusion.
	Given that, I believe that it is important that the Minister is given an opportunity to justify the inclusion of the clause. Local elections were not scheduled for 3rd May in Northern Ireland. They are held on the third Wednesday in May and were scheduled for 16th May. Given the present situation in the Province, it is not clear why they should be delayed to give more time for the foot and mouth crisis to be brought under control.
	The justification given in the other place was that a UK-wide response was necessary. But why is that necessary? Local elections are not held on a UK-wide basis on the same day. Therefore, why do we need a uniform date now?
	It has been suggested that there is a political motivation for the delay, unrelated to foot and mouth disease. The Minister in the other place has acknowledged that, if local elections were to be held at the same time as a general election, turnout for local elections would be likely to increase. Experience supports that proposition. However, formally, we do not know the date of the next general election; or perhaps we may take the word of the Minister in the other place, Mr George Howarth, as confirmation of the date.
	If the intention is to ensure a coincidence in the date of both local and general elections in order to boost turnout, should that not be a matter of considered debate rather than something achieved as a largely undiscussed by-product of a Bill brought in ostensibly for a different purpose?
	The Minister may be able to assuage my concerns. I say that having seen his compendium letter. As I said in opening, my purpose in giving notice of my intention to oppose the stand part Motion was to provide the Minister with an opportunity to explain why the clause was included. The severity of the programming Motion in the other place meant that there was no time in which to discuss the clause. The task of ensuring adequate scrutiny thus falls to this House. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's response.

Lord Smith of Clifton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for his probing Question because it takes up a concern that I expressed at Second Reading. I remarked then that, in introducing the Bill, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, had paid scant attention to the Northern Ireland aspect, although, as I pointed out, it comprises over half the Bill.
	I specifically asked the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to explain in his reply the reasons for including Northern Ireland in the Bill, given that, as I pointed out and as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, also mentioned, there has been only a single outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland and that could hardly be a reason for postponing the local elections there.
	With a superb display of his courtroom skills, the Attorney-General studiously ignored that request and said that he would write to me regarding my more detailed questions. He employed the well-worn diverting ploy of saying, "Never mind the ball, watch my feet!". He humoured and flattered your Lordships' House with considerable flair but avoided the question that I had posed.
	The fact of the matter is that the Government, quite ill-advisedly in my view, are disingenuously trying to use the foot and mouth epidemic in Great Britain as a rather implausible fig leaf to camouflage their real motives for applying the Bill to Northern Ireland. The compendium letter referred to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, which echoed my query, but the rather weak answers given compound the deviousness.
	There is no need for the Government to be coy. Their real intention, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has explicitly said, is to hold local and general elections on the same day in order to maximise voter turnout and, one hopes, support for the pro-Belfast agreement parties. Those are both eminently laudable aims. However, it does not serve democracy to prevaricate and dissemble in the way the Government have done. The Bill--or at least the major part of it that concerns Northern Ireland--was clearly prepared weeks ago with that covert purpose in mind. The Government have been too clever by half--they have employed the reasons for postponing the local elections in Great Britain as some sort of excuse for doing the same in Northern Ireland. That patently does not hold up.
	The actions proposed by the Government--postponing the local elections in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland--are identical but the real reasons for them are quite different. So far as concerns Northern Ireland, the Government's case would have been better served if they had been open and honest and not attempted to use the foot and mouth outbreak in Great Britain to justify the postponement of the local elections in Northern Ireland. In the black arts of politics, openness can be more machiavellian than deviousness.
	That lack of candour has undoubtedly provoked the noble Lord, Lord Norton, into opposing Clause 2, which will apply to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord is wholly justified in raising the issue again in an attempt to get a straight answer. However, I am relieved to hear that he will not test the opinion of the Committee. As I said, Liberal Democrats appreciate the desirability of holding general and local elections on the same day in Northern Ireland because that will maximise voter turnout. However, I wish that that would be clearly admitted by the Government.

Lord Monson: I want to support the arguments that were well presented by the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Smith. This is an emergency Bill that will cope with a grave national emergency. That is why it was rushed through the other place so quickly using the guillotine procedure, to the great indignation of many honourable Members. That is also why it is being rushed through this House almost as quickly. Happily, as has been said, the emergency does not afflict Northern Ireland, where there has been only one case, which occurred quite a long time ago and which has not spread. Even the Government do not pretend otherwise.
	Even if the epidemic had hit Northern Ireland hard, postponing the elections by a mere three weeks--or, to be specific, by 22 days--could have made no difference. There may or may not be a case for synchronising local and national elections in the Province. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and others who know the Province much better than I do, favour the status quo.
	Even if there is on balance a good case for change, an emergency Bill of this sort is a totally unsuitable vehicle. Accordingly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in his opposition to the clause. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Smith, however, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will consider testing the opinion of the Committee.

Lord Fitt: I rise to reinforce what I said in your Lordships' House last Thursday. Since then, I have spoken with many people in Northern Ireland, all of whom are of the same opinion: that the inclusion of Northern Ireland in a Bill relating to the deferment of elections has absolutely nothing to do with foot and mouth disease and that some other reason lies behind the proposal. I suspect that some of the major political parties in Northern Ireland are not happy at the prospect of going to the polls and that they have made representations to the Government.
	It is not right for the Government in Westminster to try to decide which way the people in Northern Ireland should cast their votes. Much legislation relating to terrorism has gone through the House during the past two or three years. Some of it has been controversial, including that relating to the release of prisoners and an amnesty for prisoners. During our debates on those matters we were told, "But Northern Ireland is different because of the terrorist activity, which has lasted for many years. We should not apply the same standards here". In this case, the Government have departed from that dictum. They say, "Northern Ireland is not different; it is exactly the same". I remember that someone once said, "Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley", but that was a total mistake.
	There has been only one case of foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland which, thankfully, was contained within that one location in County Armagh. There are suspicions that it got there in the first place because terrorist organisations were engaged in a scam to get livestock imported from England into Northern Ireland and then taken over the Border.
	One of the main reasons why we should not agree with the proposal is because two systems of voting are involved. The voting system for the general election involves the first-past-the-post system, which applies in other parts of the United Kingdom. The voting system in the local authority elections involves proportional representation, in which one votes for number one, two, three, four, five, six or seven, depending on how many candidates there are. Many people, particularly those who are older, find going into a polling station and being met with two different types of ballot paper greatly confusing. That might involve the same extent of confusion as that which we saw during the last American presidential election in the state of Florida and in Miami. We should remember how long it took the authorities to decide the outcome of that election.
	My main reason for opposing the proposal involves my experience fighting elections in Northern Ireland during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, which were times of great terrorist activity. The terrorist organisation that now wears the mantle of democracy and is engaged in legitimate ballot-box politics at that time ordered people not to vote. It threatened people if they went to polling stations to vote and it shot policemen who were guarding ballot boxes. There was much intimidation in all of those elections, but the Government did not say that the peculiar circumstances that operated in Northern Ireland were a reason for calling off the elections. The Government said that the whole democratic process must be adhered to and that there must be no dilution of it. Irrespective of the dangers that then existed, they said that we must continue with the elections.
	That has all gone by the board on this occasion. I repeat that the Government's approach has absolutely nothing to do with foot and mouth disease and everything to do with representations that have been made by certain political parties for the elections to be deferred in the hope that that will help their cause. That is a violation of democracy and that is why I oppose the clause.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that if the elections are held on the same day in Northern Ireland, all goes well. I am sure that we all hope that. I also hope that the special circumstances in Northern Ireland will not make that any more difficult.
	I want to raise one or two small points about the problems of having elections to different bodies on the same day. That arose in Scotland, when the Scots Parliament was elected on the same day that local government elections were held. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, wrote to my noble friend Lord Cope, he was kind enough to send me a copy of his answer. He has taken on board the problem that I described.
	Therefore, I hope that the publicity issued before the election will help. But not knowing all the intricacies of the situation in Northern Ireland, I cannot quite imagine the problems which will occur. The Government seem to have thought very hard about this and feel that political considerations override the others in this case. It certainly cannot be about foot and mouth. However, I hope it goes extremely well.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, accused me of being devious, disingenuous and dissembling and even worse, said that I was behaving like a lawyer.
	It is true that there has been only one confirmed case of foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland. We all hope and pray that that will continue to obtain. But a few weeks ago, I could have said that in area X, a particular part of Wales, for example, there has been no report at all of foot and mouth. As it happened, I was down in west Wales on Friday and Saturday and there has now been a reported case. So I do not believe that simply to say that there has been only one case so far is necessarily determinative of that point. If I were anything to do with farming in Northern Ireland and someone said to me, "There has only been one case", I should meet that with deep displeasure.

Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. How is postponing the elections for 22 days going to make things any better?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have not suggested that it would make things any better. I was about to develop my argument, which I think is a proper one, that the mere fact that there has been only one case confirmed is not determinative. In fact, Northern Ireland depends particularly on agriculture in that economy, which has been battered extensively, for the reasons of which my noble friend Lord Fitt spoke, for the past 30 years. I know that these facts are in the compendium letter but not everyone will have had the opportunity to read it. Five per cent of jobs are in agriculture while the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole is only 1.6 per cent. So one has to have a fairly careful approach.
	I believe that the careful, prudent and precautionary step to put off the elections to the same date in Northern Ireland is right. Those who are irretrievably bathed in cynicism will either not listen or not agree, but that may be their problem rather than mine.
	I turn to some specific points. Apart from the point that there has been only one confirmed outbreak, which I do not take as a point of value at all, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture, to whom we should pay some attention, has called--I use his phrase--for the fortress farming approach to be maintained. Nineteen road blocks are now in place in a 10 kilometre surveillance zone in Newry and Mourne. It has been said that there has been some confusion.

Lord Fitt: I should point out to my noble and learned friend that the Northern Ireland Minister is a lady. Unless she has had a sex change over the past week, she remains a lady. But she has made representations to Europe and the parliamentary authorities there have said that Northern Ireland can be classed as a disease-free zone. She made representations to Europe to that effect. It has been agreed that Northern Ireland should not be classified in the same way as all the other areas in England and that it is a disease-free zone.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course, and all our efforts must be to try to keep it that way. I believe that it is responsible and prudent to maintain that slight deferment.
	My noble friend Lord Fitt and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, spoke about combined polls. My noble friend Lord Fitt said that elderly voters sometimes become confused. I believe that the noble Baroness was referring to the generality of voters. We shall be using additional publicity to inform voters if--and I stress I do not know--there is a combined poll.
	I should say about Northern Ireland, with which I have had a lot to do over the past years, that it has been polled more often than any other part of the United Kingdom. Over the past years, it has had a poll, on average, once every 14 months. So I do not believe that it could be described as an unsophisticated electorate. "Bored witless" might be one description but it cannot be described as unsophisticated and not knowledgeable about the voting mechanisms and the process.
	Quite often in the past it has been asked why Northern Ireland should be treated differently. If there is an election, which is coincident with the local election, then that would mean that Northern Ireland would be treated similarly to the rest of the United Kingdom.
	Many of those points have been put in the compendium letter. I have repeated them briefly because not all Members of the Committee will have seen those points in the letter. I anticipate that I shall not have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Norton, but equally, he has not convinced me, so we must part amicably, as we always do. I think it is a perfectly reasonable, sustainable part of the Bill. Had this step not been taken, I believe that there might have been quite vigorous criticism as to why Northern Ireland was not potentially capable of being treated in the same way. I put "potentially" and I put "capable" because I do not know the date of the election. If I did, I should be a happy man beetling down to William Hill this very second.

Lord Monson: The noble and learned Lord accuses those of us who oppose this clause of cynicism. However, I refer him to the Explanatory Notes on the Elections Bill produced, I assume, by his department.
	The notes first refer to Northern Ireland in any substantive sense in paragraph 15 which states:
	"The Bill takes the opportunity",
	and note carefully that word "opportunity",
	"to bring Northern Ireland electoral provisions into line with those of the rest of the UK".
	So it is nothing to do with the proportion of people engaged in agriculture or foot and mouth or anything like that. It is using the Bill as a convenient vehicle to bring the provisions in Northern Ireland into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Who is being the cynic now?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the noble Lord has said absolutely underlines what I said a second or two ago. This is capable, potentially, of bringing Northern Ireland into line. That is no different from the Explanatory Notes phrases which were read out. I did not accuse any Members of the Committee of cynicism in adopting the stance that they did. I said that if any Members of the Committee failed to accept what I said, they might have been bathed in cynicism. But, of course, I never resort to personal abuse of any sort in this House, whatever the temptation.

Lord Norton of Louth: First, I do not criticise the Minister at all for putting on record what was in the compendium letter; quite the reverse. That is exactly the sort of material that should be put on the record and I am extremely pleased that he did so.
	Secondly, I was not trying to persuade the noble and learned Lord of the argument against the clause. Rather, I was trying to create the opportunity for the noble and learned Lord to make the case for the clause and, in some way, willing him on to do that. I hear the points he has made which I believe are reasonable. I should have liked him to go a little further in some of the justification but I believe that he made a better case for Clause 2 than he did for some of the provisions of Clause 1. Given that there is agreement about the nature of the Bill, I believe that it would not be wise to divide the Committee on it. That would not achieve any purpose. My purpose has been achieved by the noble and learned Lord putting on record the case, so that it is quite clear and self-contained in relation to this particular clause. Therefore, I no longer oppose the Question that this clause shall stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Compensation]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 3, line 22, after "may" insert ", by way of an order pursuant to Section 7"

Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 13 proposes that any compensation scheme made by the Secretary of State should be made by way of an order under Clause 7, that is an order exercisable by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. In the next group of amendments we shall debate the desirability or otherwise of a scheme of compensation. However, I believe that it is generally agreed that to pay compensation out of the public purse to election candidates is not a small matter. As the Bill provides for orders in Clause 7, it seems to me that it would be entirely proper for any scheme brought forward by the Government to be brought before both Houses of Parliament, or at least for there to be the opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to consider the matter.
	The Government have already indicated that they do not intend to make the scheme available for candidates who are representatives of the registered political parties, only for individual candidates and, of course, for local authorities. The compendium letter from the Minister indicated that the Government hope to be able to announce the details of the scheme before the delayed elections on 7th June. I should hope that is the case.
	I am aware that the Minister indicated that there will be consultation with the parties, presumably in both Houses. I am not sure what form that will take. I believe that this is an important provision and one in which the order-making power should apply. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. The Bill contains a power in Clause 6 for the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to compensate local authorities and candidates for the additional costs which they incur as a result of the postponement. It would be fair to say that there is general agreement that compensation should be paid to local authorities for their additional costs. The noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that that was confirmed in the compendium letter.
	In respect of the candidates there is all-party consensus which might better be described as an all-party self-denying ordinance that no compensation should be paid to candidates of registered political parties. I confirm that we will respect and abide by that consensus. We recognise that independent candidates may have a better case and we will entertain claims from independent candidates who suffered genuine and significant losses as a result of the delaying of the elections. Again, as I indicated in my letter, we would be more than happy to discuss the detail of that with opposition parties. It is also worth drawing attention to the briefing note issued by the Local Government Association. The association welcomes the Government's recognition of the additional costs involved in postponing the elections and our willingness to compensate councils and candidates who are particularly affected. There has been a broad range of welcome for the proposal.
	We do not see the need to make the power to establish a compensation scheme subject to the negative resolution statutory instrument procedure. We are not alone in that view. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, whose views on such matters we always take seriously, had this to say:
	"The Committee decided, for the sake of completeness, to refer in this report to the power in clause 6 to make a scheme compensating local authorities and candidates who incur additional expenditure because elections are postponed to June. The Committee does not regard this as a delegated power and sees no objection to leaving it as an informal administrative matter not requiring the formality of a statutory instrument".
	In the light of that view, the view expressed by the Local Government Association, and our generous disposition to consult on this matter, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I shall do so, but not before I have expressed disappointment in that reply. I do not think that it addressed the point. I accept that the Government have indicated that they will consult with the parties, but consultation is not the same as allowing both Houses of Parliament to consider the matter. I do not argue for the affirmative procedure. We are talking of payment from the public purse to individuals. I am straying, as I believe did the Minister, on to issues covered by the next group of amendments. We need to ask ourselves whether it is right to allow the Government to come up with a scheme which will judge who should be paid compensation; on what basis it should be paid and, frankly, one which is likely to be arbitrary.
	My noble friend Lord Goodhart raised with me the question that the provision in Clause 6(1) could be read as referring back to Clause 1(7). That is the provision which allows an increase in expenses of 50 per cent to be paid. He asked whether that would mean, for instance, on the basis of Clause 1(7) that an individual candidate spends 50 per cent extra and, because of the wording of Clause 6(1), he says to the Government, "I want to be paid the excess"? That may sound fanciful. However, it is the sort of reason why the Committee should have the opportunity to consider the scheme.
	I note also that the Minister did not give any further indication of the date when this proposal will be introduced. Perhaps I may say that I hope that this will be dealt with swiftly and not at the last minute. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 3, line 23, leave out "or candidate who"

Baroness Hamwee: As I have just said, we have already strayed onto this ground. Nevertheless, the argument needs to be made and answered, even if briefly. Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 seek to leave in place the provision for a scheme for compensation to local authorities but not to any candidate, whether independent or otherwise.
	I do not want to be tedious on this point. I have already stated that we are talking of money paid from public funds. I wonder whether the public would think it right that any candidate for election should be able to have recourse to public funds to support him or her in that election. As a matter of principle, to be entitled to make such a claim is not right.
	The Minister referred to the "all-party self-denying ordinance" and spoke of the scheme not applying to candidates representing registered political parties. That was not wholly clear in the winding-up speech on Thursday. First, there was an undertaking that the scheme "would not be for candidates"--which were the words used--but later the reference was to independents only. I do not know whether the Minister feels that he has anything to add to what he has already said. I give him the opportunity to do so by moving the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: We had considerable discussion on this matter at Second Reading. Perhaps I may re-emphasise that the proposals that independent candidates should at least be given the opportunity to put forward a claim now has all-party support. There was a suggestion at Second Reading that the Conservative Party had somehow tried to kibosh that proposal. I want to be clear that there has never been any intention by this party to do anything other than support the position that those supported by parliamentary parties should not seek compensation in this way.
	It was correctly said by the Home Secretary in another place that there may be people who already suffer financial problems as a result of being farmers who have been exposed to current difficulties. Therefore, it seems proper that there should be a scheme of some kind. I understand that the Home Secretary, or someone in his department, will have to adjudicate, but provided it is confined to independent candidates and does not extend to members of political parties we will support the proposal.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I want to make two brief observations. First, given that the decision to postpone the county elections was made the day before nominations closed, I do not have a huge amount of sympathy with anyone who has incurred a great deal of expenditure. After all, candidates could not be sure who would be standing against them, to which party they belonged and so forth. Most prudent candidates would not print leaflets until they had such information. Having it ready on the computer is another thing.
	Secondly, I can imagine that it would be difficult to ascertain whether a candidate was independent. It is easy to tell whether someone is standing under the banner of a party but whether he or she is a member and what the links might be would be difficult to ascertain.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: A few points for clarification have emerged during the short discussion. It was not our intention to suggest that the Conservative Party wanted to put the kibosh--a great term which my mother loved using--on the proposal. The compendium letter which we dispatched made it plain that we wanted to respect the fruits of all-party consensus on the issue.

Baroness Hanham: My accusation, if it was that, or dart was not directed at the noble Lord.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for that clarification. It is on the record.
	As regards the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, we are talking about independents who are not members of a registered political party. The letter clarifies that issue. In another place, the Home Secretary gave a clear example of what he had in mind and it was precisely that which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised; that of the farmer candidate who had suffered as a result of foot and mouth and had then lost a large amount of money on wasted election literature.
	I suspect that few people will fall into that category. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, it would be unusual for the large chunk of literature to be produced by independent candidates prior to the closing of nominations and so forth. However, my experience is that initial leaflets are prepared at that stage. They can cost perhaps £150, depending on how many are to be distributed and how far, so a significant sum of money could be involved. We want to have the facility for compensation in such situations.
	I accept that there will be administrative difficulty in seeking to ensure that the money has been spent in the way that was claimed. However, I cannot believe that that is an insurmountable problem and I am sure that most people who stand for local government are straight in the way in which they approach such matters. I would not want to cast doubt on their bona fides and believe that we must take such things at face value.
	We are simply trying to be helpful. We respect the position of independent candidates and our approach is designed to achieve that objective. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I support the Minister's point that members of a political party should not receive compensation under the scheme. I dare say that I am not the only Member of the Committee who has come across members of local authorities who sit as independents but who are members of a political party. Will the Minister confirm, or seriously consider the point, that in assessing a claim for compensation the Government will ensure that the question is asked: "Are you a member of a political party, whether or not you are standing under the banner of that party?"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is entirely proper that the individual is asked whether he or she is a member of a registered political party. That is the important question.

Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that answer, which is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Consequential provision]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 3, line 38, at end insert--
	"( ) The powers provided by subsection (1) shall not extend to altering the date of 7th June 2001, wherever it appears in this Act, to any other date."

Baroness Hamwee: The amendment was tabled before we received the Minister's letter. It seeks to provide that an imaginative use--I was going to say "devious"--of Clause 7 should not be made so as to change the date of 7th June. The letter gave me a categorical assurance that the order-making power in Clause 7 could not be used for that purpose. It indicates that the order can be used only to make the necessary changes which are consequential on the main provisions of the Act. Clause 7(1) refers to
	"consequential, transitional or supplemental provisions".
	Can the Minister confirm that it would not be possible to use Clause 7 in that way? I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is the final amendment to which the compendium letter refers. Perhaps I may say on behalf of all Members of the Committee how grateful we are to the officials at the Home Office. They had to work very hard indeed. Our Second Reading debate was on Thursday and they delivered this full and helpful letter on Friday. It has been of great assistance in the efficient running of this business. So often the work of officials goes unsung--not unheeded but unsung--and I am grateful to be able to say that on behalf of the Committee.
	I give the absolute assurance that the order-making power cannot be used to change the date of the deferred elections from 7th June or for that matter to change the date of any other elections.

Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I shall not sing my thanks to the officials. I am mindful that I am keeping some Members of the Committee from choir practice. We are very much aware of the work which went into the letter, which was extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Schedule: [Northern Ireland: Modification of Election Provisions]:

Lord Smith of Clifton: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 7, line 9, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Lord Smith of Clifton: Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 will place an absolute duty on the returning officer to make arrangements for the opening of the ballot boxes for the parliamentary election and any ballot papers for the local election to be taken out. By the same token, he can make arrangements for the opening of the ballot boxes for the local election and any ballot papers for the parliamentary election to be taken out. I attest to the point made by the noble and learned Lord about the sophistication of the Northern Ireland electorate, given its experience. I had never voted so frequently as in the eight years that I lived there. No matter how skilled and practised in voting the Northern Ireland electorate may be, there is no guarantee that every single paper will end up in the correct ballot box. We believe it is essential that there are suitable arrangements in place to ensure that there is as little confusion as possible, and it should not be left to the judgment of individual returning officers. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support the amendment. I very much wonder why the Bill does not say "shall". I believe that I indicated at Second Reading that this was included in the Scotland Bill. I have not checked to see whether this matter was compulsory. However, as a polling agent I was informed at the time that it would happen. Polling agents had to be present when the box was opened and resealed before it went to a central place for the votes to be counted. At the polling station where I was located a number of ballot papers, which were colour-coded, were placed in the wrong box. Provided the people who did the count were not colour blind there was no problem. However, it was good to see that happen. I would have thought that this would be a good idea in the context of Northern Ireland where this is a very sensitive matter. Before I am satisfied I believe that the Minister needs to explain why it is not compulsory. I am sure that if it was compulsory it would work better. It sounds like a small point but when there is a count, tension is high, and I am sure that it is higher in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. It may be--I am not sure--that Scottish voters are less sophisticated than those in Northern Ireland. But I believe that we are also quite canny in deciding which votes go into which box. Mistakes can be made. The Minister needs to look at this matter rather carefully.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that we are entirely agreed on the purpose identified by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. We are agreed that the reconciliation of ballot papers which have been put into the wrong box is a very important element in the conduct of a combined election where separate boxes are used. I can reassure the Committee that the chief electoral officer and deputy returning officers who conduct any combined election are fully aware of the need to use this procedure in the present circumstances, because it is their obligation to ensure that there is a fair election. They must complete a ballot paper account before counting the votes.
	The only reason why the word used is "may" and not "shall" is that circumstances surrounding elections change. Procedures that are sensible and useful now may need to be amended in due time, and we simply offer returning officers a degree of flexibility. But the clear intention is that these steps shall be taken in the first elections. There is no hidden plot or mystery about it: that is the reason.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: With respect, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord gives an adequate answer. The opening of a ballot box after the end of the poll is a very sensitive issue. Anything can happen if people "may" open a ballot box, but if they have to do so and polling agents must be present nothing can go wrong. It must be a formal ceremony, as it were, which is witnessed by all the parties. If it is not compulsory, returning officers may not believe that it is necessary, and it may happen in one place and not in another. Is that good enough?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, but it would not be competent for anyone other than the returning officer to open the ballot box or make these arrangements. We simply insert "may" and not "shall" because in different circumstances in future returning officers may need a degree of flexibility, and that is all that we offer. They fully intend to follow these procedures. It is their statutory duty to ensure a fair election, and a fair election will involve the steps which the noble Baroness specifies.

Lord Smith of Clifton: I too would have preferred "shall" rather than "may". I cannot quite envisage other circumstances which would require flexibility. Nevertheless, I am reassured by the response of the noble and learned Lord that returning officers will be enjoined to observe what are in effect guidelines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
	Schedule agreed to.
	Bill reported without amendment. Then, Standing Order No. 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 5th April), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Regulatory Reform Bill [H.L.]

Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
	House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.